Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [24 October],

That this House doth agree with Lords in their Amendment, to leave out Clause 6.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 8 November.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have the effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 8 November.

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL

SHARD BRIDGE BILL

Motion made,

That so much of the Lords Messages [17th October, 24th October and 25th October] as relate to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill be now considered.

That the Promoters of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, provided that in the case of each Bill the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bills shall be presented to the House;

That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 8 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Local Government Finance

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the involvement of armed forces officers in enforcing collection of the poll tax from armed services personnel refusing to pay.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): None, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, recently, some squaddies were bullied into paying their poll tax by having their arm twisted by officers, who were acting on advice from the Government? Is not it squalid and nasty that American forces do not have to pay the poll tax when these young lads can be sent out to the Gulf to fight for Queen and country and that self-same Queen does not pay a penny piece in poll tax?

Mr. Hamilton: Officers in the armed forces advise service men to abide within the law when it comes to paying the community charge. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman does the same for his constituents.

Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that those members of the armed forces who have been assigned a duty in the Gulf will not suffer under the community charge because of their posting?

Mr. Hamilton: After a single man has been abroad for about 60 days, he no longer has to pay the community charge. For married men, the period is up to six months. That will cover a large number of service men who are serving in the Gulf.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware of the sense of injustice felt by poll tax payers in the armed services, not least when the figures that he gave me in July of this year show that in the past 10 years, a private's pay has fallen by 4 per cent. while that of a general has increased by 45 cent., and that of a field marshal has increased by 86 per cent? Is not that an injustice to the lower ranks? Should not they be given some assistance?

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pay of service men is decided by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and that of generals is decided by the Top Salaries Review Body. We have merely accepted the recommendations made to us.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem, but that it is the reverse of that put forward by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is he aware that service men on full-time courses of education can be deemed to be students, which means that they pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax? Does my hon. Friend further agree that that is not fair on a constituency such as Gosport, which has lost £270,000 as a result of that concession? Will he look at the situation with a view to changing it?

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment are aware that people who are judged to be in full-time education need pay only

20 per cent. of the community charge. It is obviously up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he wishes to, to change the legislation to deal with that.
Greenham Common

Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been removed from Greenham Common since the byelaws were declared invalid.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Although the House of Lords ruled on 12 July that the Greenham Common byelaws were invalid, there can be no general right of access to any operational RAF station and any persons entering without authority will be removed as trespassers and for their own safety. Between 12 July and 23 October, 532 such cases were recorded at Greenham Common, but the number of individuals involved is much smaller.

Ms. Short: We all understand that in this country no one can be arrested or detained except under the law. Now that the byelaws in Greenham Common have been declared illegal, that means that thousands have been wrongly arrested, detained and charged. More seriously, since the byelaws were declared illegal people are still being detained and removed from the base in vans. The Minister has said that that is allowed, but under what law is it allowed? His declaration does not make it right or lawful.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady does not seem aware of the laws of trespass, which are such that if someone trespasses, he can be asked to remove himself. If he fails to do so, such force as is necessary can be used to make sure that he is removed from the premises. That is the law under which people are acting at Greenham Common at the moment.
The women at Greenham Common put themselves there as a so-called peace camp because they wanted to see the departure of cruise missiles from the base. I remind the hon. Lady—perhaps she would like to tell the women there, who do not seem to have realised this—that all the cruise missiles will be gone by April next year, so I cannot quite see what they are doing wasting everybody's time and money camping outside Greenham Common.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Greenham Common women contributed nothing to the end of the cold war, and the decision to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles was a much more fundamental reason for the ending of the cold war?

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. We should pay great tribute to the diplomacy and negotiations that took place between the United States and the Soviet Union which led to the intermediate nuclear forces agreement and to the removal of those missiles from Greenham Common next year.

NATO

Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss the organisation's future role.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I next expect to meet Dr. Woerner at the nuclear planning group and defence planning committee meetings in December. I would expect to discuss with him a wide range of defence issues.

Mr. Cartwright: When the Secretary of State next meets the Secretary-General, will he make it abundantly clear that closer European defence collaboration is practical common sense but that it must be kept firmly within the NATO framework? Will he particularly reject the current daydreaming about some European Community defence force, which can only undermine the transatlantic relationship which has been so successful over the past 40 years?

Mr. King: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that at the very successful NATO summit in London, it was specifically agreed that a key pillar of NATO for the future would be the continuing transatlantic connection. United States forces based in Europe are a very important element of that.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Given NATO's magnificent record in maintaining peace in Europe since the second world war, would my right hon. Friend consider using NATO as a framework in a non-military sense as well as a military sense in ensuring continuing United States involvement in the future of a changing Europe?

Mr. King: Certainly, the NATO summit envisaged continuing discussions in the North Atlantic Council about a political dimension as well, but four of the key pillars of the alliance for the future shape of NATO are an integrated military structure, an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, United States forces—including nuclear—based in Europe and a united Germany in NATO.

Mr. Beggs: Now that there is movement towards political union in Europe, will the Government encourage the Government of the Irish Republic to join NATO?

Mr. King: I am not sure that that arises on this question.

Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on what discussions he has had about the further out-of-area role for NATO when he next meets the Secretary-General?

Mr. King: At present the NATO countries are separately involved in an out-of-area role in the Gulf. Hon. Members interested in defence matters are watching with great interest to see how well the various structures perform. We are co-operating in the Western European Union—that is one aspect of our activities in the Gulf. Our working relationship with the United States clearly benefits from our previous experiences working together within NATO.

The Gulf

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of British forces in the Gulf to the end of the financial year.

Mr. Tom King: The full operating costs of the operation in the Gulf to the end of the financial year are, in current circumstances, expected to exceed £600 million.

Mr. Hughes: Whatever the cost, will the Secretary of State ensure that it is not paid for in human lives? Will he stress to all concerned the need for patience, to give sanctions a full opportunity to work? Will he also seek to ensure, bearing in mind public opinion, that no pre-emptive strike is made by forces under United States command?

Mr. King: We are seeking to end Iraq's aggression by peaceful means, which is why we, together with many other countries, are throwing our efforts fully behind the United Nations embargo. In that way, we hope that the aggression can be ended without conflict. But, as was said by the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), in our debate on the Gulf crisis, it would be extremely unwise to discard the military option. It is important that the message is borne in every day on Saddam Hussein that, one way or another, he will lose. His understanding of that reality offers the best hope of the matter being settled peacefully.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In view of the fact that the Treasury funded the Falklands conflict separately from the defence budget, what success is my right hon. Friend having in persuading the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a similar arrangement in meeting the cost of our troops in the Gulf?

Mr. King: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for their help. I made it clear that we do not know at this stage precisely what will be the additional cost over our continuing defence budget, but I outlined the gross cost in answering the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). I have made it clear to my right hon. Friends that we shall seek to cover what we can in the defence budget, but they have assured me of their sympathetic consideration of the extra costs involved in our essential defence of freedom and our stand with other allies against aggression.

Mr. Denzil Davies: We are pleased that the Secretary of State can meet the extra cost from within his existing budget.

Mr. King: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: Or if not, that the right hon. Gentleman will bring a supplementary budget before the House. Has the Secretary of State held discussions with any countries that have an equivalent interest to ours, both within the Gulf area and outside it, as to what contribution they will make?

Mr. King: To avoid any misunderstanding, I must make it clear that I shall cover what costs I can from within the defence budget, but I certainly anticipate that it will be necessary to bring a supplementary budget before the House, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
I confirm that discussions are continuing with other countries about their contribution. We have already received certain help, such as assistance with training from the German Government, and food, fuel and water from host Governments in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf. We are looking for contributions from other countries towards meeting some of our costs.

Mr. Marlow: I share my right hon. Friend's desire for the crisis to be resolved diplomatically, but obviously it could turn into a conflict. What contingency plans has my right hon. Friend made for what he anticipates will be the likely level of casualties in the event of a conflict?

Mr. King: I shall not answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question, but we are making appropriate arrangements for medical facilities. Some are already established because we have a substantial number of


troops in the Gulf, and they never travel without having appropriate medical facilities. We are seeking to ensure that adequate facilities exist to meet any situation that may arise.

Trident

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current development position and cost of the Trident nuclear missile programme.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): The Trident programme continues to time and to budget towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that there has been a delay in purchasing the missiles? Since that appears to be the case, would it be better to cancel Trident and save £9·5 billion, to ensure that the strategic arms reduction talks are successful, by concluding those negotiations, and to strengthen the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which, as the Minister knows, has been signed by 139 non-nuclear nations, which have agreed not to deploy or manufacture nuclear weapons? If the Minister repeats the arid nonsense that nuclear weapons keep the peace, will he distribute them to the middle eastern countries so that he can apply the theory there?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for 16 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Off and on."]—except for a brief gap when he was looking for a more amenable electorate. During that period he has asked almost the same question throughout, and he should not be surprised if he gets almost the same answer. The delay in purchasing the missiles will not affect the in-service date.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely foolish for us to give up our nuclear capability, in view of the fact that many countries have a chemical capability and a potential nuclear capability?

Mr. Clark: Of course, it would be entirely wrong to give up the capability, to which the present decrease of confrontational tension is largely attributable, at the very moment when proliferation among more widely diffused and less responsible regimes looks imminent.

Mr. Hood: Following on from the question put by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), are the Government considering putting forward the argument that nuclear weapons deter chemical weapons? If that is the case, are they saying that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons if the Iraqis use chemical weapons?

Mr. Clark: We are saying that the nuclear weapon is an essential part of deterrent capability, and its use is a matter of judgment for the Government, on the advice of the operational commanders on the spot.

Defence Review

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment has been made of the options outlined in his recent defence review, in the light of developments in the Gulf.

Mr. Tom King: I have not reassessed my proposals in my statement on "Options for Change", since those proposals specifically addressed the need to retain sufficient defences to be able still to respond flexibly and effectively to new and unexpected threats.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international milieu is dangerous, that it has been in the past, and that it will be again in the future? Does he further agree that those who advocate making maximum use of the so-called peace dividend should sit back and consider what the ramifications may be in the future? It may well be that we would not be able to react in the same way as we have to the gangsterism in Kuwait. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the House that he will fully consult service chiefs on any cuts that may be considered in the future?

Mr. King: I can certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend. On 25 July I said:
We shall therefore continue to need a robust defence capability as our insurance against the unexpected.
I also said that the abilities and professionalism of our armed forces
are not something that can be lightly discarded and then easily recalled when they may suddenly be needed."—[Official Report, 25 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 470–72.]
Anyone who has watched the skill and professionalism of the deployment to the Gulf of the seventh armoured brigade, of the Tornado and Jaguar squadrons and of the Royal Navy understands exactly what that means, and that is why this party and this Government will stand for the defence of this country, and make adequate provision to ensure that if those forces are needed they will go there properly trained and properly equipped.

Dr. Reid: When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to give us more information than hitherto on the implications of "Options for Change" for NATO strategy? What changes will there be to forward defence as a result of "Options for Change"?

Mr. King: As was made clear at the NATO summit, there will clearly be scope for change in forward defence, with greater mobility and greater flexibility likely to feature as the emerging strategy, which is under discussion at the moment within NATO, following the London summit. I shall not repeat it all to the House, but I set out the pillars on which the NATO summit agreed that the review should continue. Certainly there will be scope for change. Discussions are taking place now to see how we can adapt most effectively to the new situation while ensuring that we maintain strong and credible defence in Europe.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf that comes through clearly is the need for Royal Air Force pilots to fly low and fast and to be able to do so in operational conditions at short notice? Is not that one lesson that we should never forget?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is accurately aware of the needs of the Royal Air Force. What he says is true. Part of the capability of the Tornado GR1 fleet very much depends on its ability to fly low and to survive. It is essential, therefore, that if the fleet is asked to do that, it should have had adequate opportunity to train for it.

Mr. O'Neill: When will the Secretary of State produce the detailed figures that were so evidently missing from his


25 July statement? Does he agree that it is not good enough just to sit back after making that statement—that he has to anticipate what is likely to happen now that the conventional forces in Europe agreement is almost signed? Will there be a second statement before too long, which will include the figures and state what further defence cuts the Government think should be made further into the 1990s?

Mr. King: That is a bit rich. I remember that the hon. Gentleman told me at the time that he was surprised by how detailed my 25 July statement was. The work is going ahead. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a copy of what I said at the time. It spells out precisely what we regard as the Royal Navy's requirements in terms of numbers of frigates, the Trident submarine fleet, minehunters and hunter-killer submarines. I went right through the list. I shall not weary the House with in now; it is all in Hansard. That work is goind ahead without, I am pleased to say, amendment, even in the light of the new developments that we face. We put forward those proposals to ensure that the Royal Navy's requirements are met. That has to be compared with the Opposition's stance. Twice at their party conferences they have approved expenditure plans that would make quite impossible the present support that we are giving to the allied effort in the Gulf.

The Gulf

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the pay and conditions of United Kingdom service men and women in the Gulf.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has already announced measures that will ensure that no service men or women will suffer a net reduction in pay and allowances as a result of service in the Gulf. Many of our service personnel in the Gulf are living in difficult conditions, but I am satisfied that the services are doing their very best to ensure that the general welfare and morale of our troops is maintained.

Mr. Watson: It is noticeable that the goalposts have shifted since 18 October. On that date the Minister said in a written reply that no one serving with the forces in the Gulf would lose out financially as a result of that service. We hear now that that relates only to pay and conditions. Are not service personnel in the Gulf obliged to pay an additional loading on life assurance premiums, most of which they are obliged to meet out of their own resources? Should not it be the case that no person serving with the forces in the Gulf is out of pocket financially? Should not the Minister deal urgently with the matter?

Mr. Hamilton: Service men are faced with additional life assurance premiums, but the vast bulk of the money is now being found by the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm the high morale among both service men and British civilians employed on defence contracts in the Gulf? Will he further confirm, as he will have understood from his visit to the Gulf, that military personnel there say that, if it came to a war, they would rather be attacked by chemical weapons than by conventional weapons because of the highly efficient state of our nuclear, biological and chemical

equipment that provides protection against chemical warfare? I have learnt that that equipment is the envy of our American allies.

Mr. Hamilton: I must confess that I did not find any service men who made a comparison between wanting to be attacked by chemical weapons or by conventional weapons. I suspect that if it came to a war, they would be in danger of being attacked by both sorts of weapons. The morale of the service men whom I met was very high. I found that they had great confidence in the NBC clothing and equipment that we provided. They regard it as being some of the best equipment available in the world to any soldiers. As for civilian employees, I was told by the Saudis that they were encouraged by the support that they were getting, particularly from the employees of British Aerospace.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that I shall try to put this issue very gently to him? I accept that no service men will be worse off, in net terms, but yesterday I had a telephone call from the wife of a naval service man. She said that her husband and others are severely stretched financially, to the extent that some of the naval personnel are giving blood for money in order to be able to telephone home from the Gulf. That is disturbing and I trust that the Minister will investigate all the circumstances that are imposing onerous burdens on our service men in the Gulf.

Mr. Hamilton: Our initial concern was that people would be worse off as a result of moving from Germany to the Gulf and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that that will not happen. On general rates of pay in the Navy, on the whole the Armed Forces Pay Review Body addresses that problem and ensures that rates in all three services are comparable with civilian rates of pay. That is a much bigger issue and is addressed every year by the AFPRB.

Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the field conditions applying to the service men in the Gulf would apply in any case if they remained in Germany and were out on exercise? That being so, will my hon. Friend assure the House that their families will not suffer the loss of the local overseas allowance, which may otherwise be the case?

Mr. Hamilton: The local overseas allowance payable in Germany reflects the higher cost of living that people have to bear as a result of being in Germany. That higher cost of living does not apply in Saudi Arabia. It is, therefore, sensible to phase out the local overseas allowance only when people move to an area where the costs are not so high. Having said that, many of those who have moved were previously paying accommodation and food charges which, under field conditions, they do not have to pay. That is why we have taken the overall question to assess whether, in terms of net take-home pay, they are worse off than they were before and we are ensuring that they will not be.

Strategic Arms Reductions

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for his Department's forward planning of the forthcoming completion of the START process.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: We welcome the prospect of a START treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, reductions in United States and Soviet strategic arsenals would have to go much further before we could consider how best to contribute to the strategic arms control process. Ministers have made clear in the context of the "Options for Change" review that we shall require a four-boat Trident force.

Mr. Grant: Does the Minister agree that in view of the economic recession, which was confirmed today by the Confederation of British Industry's report, we cannot afford to spend the £600 million plus that we are spending in the Gulf or the billions that we shall be spending on nuclear weapons, particularly at a time when the United States and the Soviet Union are reducing theirs? Why have the Government not offered to include Trident and Polaris in START? Why are we the only country that is not prepared to make any concessions in that way?

Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we regard the Trident missile system as the minimum deterrent that we can have if we wish to remain in the nuclear deterrent business. We have made it clear as a Government that we feel that nuclear deterrence is an essential part of the defence of the islands of this country. Muddle and confusion exist among the Opposition. Labour is currently committed to negotiating away our independent nuclear deterrent at a time when, regrettably, in other parts of the world such as Iraq nuclear capability is being produced. Labour will therefore have to face the accusation in this country that Labour is negotiating away our nuclear deterrent while Saddam Hussein is developing his.

Mr. Latham: With regard to START, will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to destroy literally thousands of their missiles without making any difference to the nuclear balance?

Mr. Hamilton: That is right. That is basically the understanding of the START agreement as far as it has got. There will be a radical reduction in arsenals on both sides. If the Labour party insists on negotiating away our deterrent in return for some balancing reductions by the Soviet Union, it will still leave the Soviet Union with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to desist from holding private conversations. It is difficult to hear.

Nuclear Radiation

Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment he has made of the effect of nuclear radiation on service men and women, ex-service men and women and others employed or fulfilling a contract with his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The Ministry of Defence, along with the rest of the United Kingdom nuclear industry, relies on the estimates of radiation risk derived by the International Commission for Radiological Protection, which is in the process of completing a re-evaluation of levels of risk.

Mr. Clay: In February, I drew the Ministry's attention to the fifth report of the United States Research Council on the biological effects of ionising radiation. I do not know whether the Ministry has bothered to study it, but, as a result of that report, the United States is compensating its nuclear test veterans for two more forms of cancer, in addition to the 11 types for which it has been compensating veterans for some time. When will British nuclear test veterans receive the same justice as their American counterparts, or does the Minister intend to keep his head buried in the sand until all those concerned are dead?

Mr. Carlisle: No, we take these matters very seriously and are happy to consider any new evidence that comes to the fore. We have great confidence in the safety of our working practices.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that I and my colleagues from the Medway towns are most grateful for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt so far with our request for an inquiry into the circumstances of people who worked on nuclear submarines at the dockyard in Chatham and have died of cancer? May I take it from his first answer that when the report is to hand he may be able to tell us whether there is to be an inquiry, as we should like?

Mr. Carlisle: Obviously, we have much sympathy for the people affected in my hon. Friend's area, and we hope that Mr. Molinari will make a speedy recovery. We shall consider all the evidence. We believe that our working practices are safe. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that we shall be considering a no-fault compensation scheme.

Mr. Boyes: We welcome the new Minister to his post, but I warn him that during his short period of office this matter will not go away. He is clearly not accepting or facing his responsibilities to nuclear test veterans who have suffered over the years without compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said, many loyal and brave soldiers who were present during nuclear tests have already died. Why can the Australians and the United States pay compensation while the British Government spend their cash on surveys deliberately and continually to delay matters? It is a disgrace and an absolute outrage, but above all it is a betrayal of a special group of British citizens.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial kind words, but he has his facts wrong. Where people can show reasonable doubt, we pay; so far, six people have received war pensions.

Conventional Forces

Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the forthcoming completion of the CFE talks.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The consequent improvements to European security and stability will be of substantial benefit to the United Kingdom.

Ms. Ruddock: May I press the Minister to be more specific about Britain's contribution to the CFE treaty? Further to the various answers given today, will he make it clear whether the cuts that he proposes will be greater or


less than those outlined in "Options for Change"? Specifically, will stage 2 include dual-capable aircraft, which the Government resisted at stage 1 but some of which will be cut in "Options for Change"?

Mr. Hamilton: We obviously took into account the agreements in CFE when we worked out "Options for Change". As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, many of the reductions that we anticipate have to be tied in with reductions under the CFE agreement. That agreement has not yet been signed, although we hope that it will be before the end of the year.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in any agreement that may be signed it is important to ensure that if the numbers in the front line of key equipments are reduced their capability must be enhanced? Above all, will my hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom modernises its helicopter force, as the helicopter is a versatile instrument which can be rapidly deployed to the Gulf or elsewhere and is important for the future?

Mr. Hamilton: I very much take my hon. Friend's point on that. There is, of course, no evidence that the Soviet Union is reducing its technological capability in this area, and so long as it continues to bring in improvements to its defence equipment, it is essential that we do the same.

The Gulf

Mr. Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of British forces in the Gulf to the end of the financial year.

Mr. Tom King: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Benn: Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the estimates emerging from Washington of 30,000 service casualties within the first 12 days of conflict? Has his attention also been drawn to the statement by Jean-Pierre Chevênement, his French opposite number, that in event of war 100,000 people might be killed? Is the Secretary of State also aware that if the American and British Governments reject the rising world demand for a peaceful settlement—which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—and decide to launch a pre-emptive strike, the responsibility for those deaths will rest on the American and British Governments who launched the attack?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman was sitting here when I answered the previous question. He knows perfectly well what I said then, which was that we want to see this matter settled by peaceful means. No sane person wishes to see conflict and casualties if they can be avoided, but the responsibility that has been recognised by an overwhelming majority in this House—and which was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—was that it was right to send forces to the Gulf and that it is right to give the clearest possible warning to Saddam Hussein that, one way or another, he will lose. That message, clearly delivered, without prevarication and without uncertainty, is the best possible hope for a peaceful resolution of this matter.

Sir Jim Spicer: In reply to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend said that he expected and hoped that if it came to an overrun on defence costs, the Treasury would give sympathetic consideration to such an overrun. Can he assure us that our service chiefs will not be inhibited in spending whatever is necessary to ensure that our troops in the Gulf have the best equipment available to them?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reply in this respect on behalf of the Government. The Government are clear that we shall make whatever contribution is appropriate to freedom and justice in the Gulf, and that we shall make our contribution to the ending of the aggression. We see that as the overwhelming priority. We shall also ensure that our armed forces who go there have the equipment that they need to do the job that we ask of them.

Cambodia

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any assistance, including training, has been provided to Cambodians engaged in resistance to the Phnom Penh regime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman will know better than I, there was a long debate in the House on Friday on Cambodia, during which these matters were fully aired. There is nothing that I can add to what the Government said then, other than to repeat that persistent claims from the hon. Gentleman and from other Opposition Members that we have supported the Khmer Rouge are completely unfounded. We never have provided, and will never provide, any form of assistance, military or otherwise, to that organisation.

Mr. Mullin: Why not tell the truth——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is okay.

Mr. Mullin: —that between July 1985 and October 1989 British service men based in Thailand were training Khmer terrorists?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman well knows that we do not comment on matters of that kind.

Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend give every assistance, including training, to those in Cambodia who are seeking to remove the mines which were laid by all sides in that terrible conflict and which are causing such devastation to the people of that sad country?

Mr. Hamilton: As I have said already, we do not comment on training given to Governments. However, we have already made it clear that we have given no assistance whatever to the Khmer Rouge and that that organisation has had no support whatever from us.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and


others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister clarify the Government's policy on Europe? The deputy Prime Minister has said that it offers recombination of sovereignty for more effective partnership. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the ecu could develop into a single currency. Was the Prime Minister surprised that in Rome, by 11 votes to one, her European colleagues preferred her Cabinet colleagues' expression of belief to that which she expressed?

The Prime Minister: We shall co-operate fully, as a nation state with its own Parliament, with the other 11 countries in the European Community. It is not our policy to have a single currency imposed upon us and I believe that that meets the views of Parliament and people. We have made different proposals for a further stage which would involve a hard ecu, and the hon. Gentleman is very much aware of those proposals.

Mr. Leigh: I wonder whether our European partners would profit from a reading of British history. If they read G.M. Trevelyan's work "England under the Stuarts", would not they see that Britain's principal contribution to European civilisation has been parliamentary democracy, just as France's was the revolution and Germany's the reformation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us come to the question.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend rest assured that she has the full support of Conservative Members in fighting for Britain's traditional sovereignty in the control of our economy?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the traditions and example of this House have gone the world over with admiration. I believe that they have not only served this country well, but they have served Europe well as this House kept sitting when the lights of Europe went out.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity strongly to condemn those Conservatives who have publicly insulted her deputy Prime Minister by calling him "irresponsible and unconstitutional" simply for expressing his views on the future of the European Community?

The Prime Minister: Conservative Members do not need a licence from me to express their views—unlike a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that Labour Back Benchers and Front Benchers did need a licence from him.

Mr. Kinnock: That certainly does not answer the question. On an issue as vital as this, does not the Prime Minister owe it to her deputy Prime Minister to state unequivocally that those who have personally and viciously attacked him do not have her support? Does she not owe it to her deputy to say that he enjoys her full confidence in all matters?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister is too big a man to need a little man like the right hon. Gentleman to stand up for him.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that other European countries hold equally strong views

about the protection of their particular national identities but are more inhibited than my right hon. Friend in expressing them?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that most people feel rather strongly about their national identities. When it comes to getting down to detailed discussion, we shall see those differences emerge. They do not emerge when we are talking about generalities.

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grant: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is unacceptable discrimination in the prison system? How is it that, just a few weeks after being sentenced for his part in the Guinness affair, Mr. Gerald Ronson was allowed out of prison in a chauffeur-driven car to consult his private doctor and to have a meal with his family and business associates? Does not that fly in the face of the sentiments expressed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who said at the Tory party conference that there would be stiffer sentencing and that
12 months means 12 months."?
Can the Prime Minister explain the contradiction between her Government's theories and their practice?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific complaints to make about a specific case he should make them to the proper authorities.

Sir William Clark: Has my right hon. Friend read the article in today's Daily Mail about the Nissan car plant in Sunderland which is not only increasing its car exports to Germany but expects to export cars to Japan next year? Is that not proof positive that when there is close co-operation between workers and management Britain can compete with anyone in the world?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The record of that car plant is quite outstanding. It is a combination of British workmanship and Japanese management which is producing excellent cars and also exporting them to increase our exports to other countries.

Mr. Home Robertson: In view of the Prime Minister's frequent pronouncements about national sovereignty, will she reflect that Britain is not a nation but a union of nations, just as the European Community is a community of nations? Is she aware that most of us want to see both the union and the Community flourish, and cannot understand why the cuckoo in Downing street is doing so much to destroy both that Community and that union?

The Prime Minister: Of course we wish to see both the United Kingdom and the European Community flourish, and the Government and the country have done a great deal to ensure that the Community does flourish. For example, in spite of having achieved a very good financial deal from the Community—much better than the one that Labour left us with—we still pay £2·2 billion to the Community, which is rather more than the £1·7 billion that we have left to pay to the third world. That is an excellent record of gift to the European Community.

Dr. Blackburn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the economic and industrial equation that an order equals production equals employment equals profits equals further investment? Will she emphasise to the nation from the Dispatch Box the importance of negotiations with management and trade unions so that they do not price themselves out of the initial ingredient which is the order in sterling?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is absolutely vital that manufacturers keep their costs down and do not price themselves out of their market. Productivity is the key, and that is not only a question of wages but of keeping up investment and very good management and very few restrictive practices. I think that we are reaching that position in British industry now, and that augurs well for the future.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does not the United Nations consider sending into Kuwait an unarmed contingent of people to set up collection points for the evacuation of those people in hiding? Is it not time that the western world and those who support this initiative ensured that we rather than Saddam Hussein were seen to be taking the initiative?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the extensive resolution passed in the United Nations yesterday which deals not only with compensation for damage in Kuwait but with the question of embassies and hostages there. It utterly condemns the hostage taking in Kuwait and calls upon Saddam Hussein to release those people immediately.. It also requests that the Secretary General use his good offices to that end.

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend at all surprised that the Italians are pressing for speedy monetary union when they have a deficit of £80 billion, when their national debt is almost equal to their gross domestic product and they want to be bailed out by the Bundesbank? Will my right hon. Friend therefore express the view of the majority of hon. Members in this House and the majority of people in this country—that she should back the market but for heaven's sake stick with the pound?

The Prime Minister: It is important that we all fulfil our present commitments before taking on new ones. Clearly, some countries in the Common Market would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a European central bank and divest their Parliaments of much of their powers. That is not our view. We do not wish to hand over further powers from this Parliament to other bodies. As my hon. Friend has said, it is also important that we complete the single market. In that respect, this country has an excellent record. There are only 15 directives that we have not implemented. Italy has not yet implemented 62 of the directives.

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clelland: In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister give some consideration to the by-elections pending in Bradford, Bootle and Paisley? Can she confirm that her electoral strategy will be to blame her candidates?

The Prime Minister: Our electoral strategy will be to point out that after 11 years of Conservative government this country has the highest standard of living ever known, that since we were returned at the last election, taxation has been reduced to 25p in the pound at the standard rate and 40p in the pound at the top rate, that the earnings rule for pensioners has been abolished, that we have the most prosperous social services and health service that this country has ever known, and that it is worth sending back Conservative Members of Parliament from those by-elections.

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jessel: As next month Her Majesty the Queen is to visit Kneller Hall at Twickenham to mark the completion of the restoration of the Royal Military school of music, which trains the finest Army bands which are the envy of the entire world, is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are proud of the Queen, of Kneller Hall and of the Prime Minister and hope that the Prime Minister will make certain that the head of the Queen remains permanently on the coinage of the realm?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of his fight to keep Kneller Hall in his constituency. With regard to that and the rest of his question, which was phrased so ingeniously—and so say all of us on this side of the House.

European Council (Rome)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council held in Rome on 27 and 28 October, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
The Council had to deal in the first place with some urgent items of current business: namely, the Community's failure to agree a negotiating position on agriculture for the Uruguay round of trade negotiations; the situation in the Gulf, and the position of the foreign nationals held hostage in Iraq and Kuwait; and the problems which have arisen in Hungary.
Looking further ahead, the Council also dealt with the preparations for the two intergovernmental conferences, on economic and monetary union and also on institutional reform, which are due to begin in December. I shall report on the Council's business in that order.
The Uruguay round of trade negotiations is due to be completed before the end of this year. The outcome will decide whether world trade becomes steadily more open, or we repeat the mistakes of the past and relapse into protectionism.
The most difficult item is agriculture. All the major participants in the Uruguay round committed themselves to table negotiating offers by 15 October. All except the European Community have done so.
The Community has been discussing this problem since the round began in the autumn of 1986. It gave an unequivocal commitment in April last year to make substantial and progressive reductions in agricultural support. That commitment was repeated at the Houston economic summit in July this year.
The Commission has put forward a proposal for 30 per cent. reductions, backdated to 1986. So what has already been done by way of reduction of support since then will be set against that 30 per cent.
There have been six sessions of European Community Ministers to discuss the proposal. The most recent, lasting some 16 hours, was on Friday last week. But no agreement has been reached. The main opposition has come from France and Germany.
The Community's failure has harmed its reputation. Negotiations between the leading groups of countries cannot start until the Community's proposals have been tabled.
The European Council requested Ministers to meet again and put the Commission in a position to table a negotiating offer. The Netherlands Prime Minister suggested that the basis for this should be the position reached when Agriculture Ministers suspended their work early on 27 October. But President Mitterrand made it clear that France would continue to vote against those proposals.
It remains for Agriculture and Trade Ministers to try yet again to reach a conclusion. If we fail, it will give a signal to the world that the Community is protectionist.
Next, with regard to the Gulf and the position of the hostages, the European Council agreed a firm statement calling for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and confirming Europe's absolute commitment to full implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The

statement makes it clear that we shall consider further steps if Iraq does not comply. The message is that Saddam Hussein must not gain anything from his aggression.
The Council also strongly condemned Iraq for holding foreign nationals as hostages and for using them in an unscrupulous way. This is totally unacceptable. Moreover, Iraq is negotiating over the hostages with the purpose of trying to divide the international community. After considerable discussion, the Council affirmed our determination not to send representatives of our Governments in any capacity to negotiate with Iraq for the release of hostages, and to discourage others from doing so. I believe that the unity of the Twelve, and our determination not to allow Saddam Hussein to divide us on the question of hostages, will send a very powerful signal to Iraq.
The third point is assistance to Hungary. In the course of the Council, member states received appeals from the Government of Hungary for help in dealing with the serious problems that have arisen as a result of the reduction in the supply of oil from the Soviet Union. The consequent price rises have given rise to unrest. The Council issued a strong statement of support for Hungary in pursuing its path towards democratic and economic reforms and the rule of law. The Council also agreed, at the United Kingdom's suggestion, to bring forward and disburse rapidly the second instalment of the ․1 billion Community loan for Hungary which we agreed last year. This will be of direct practical assistance.
Those were the urgent matters on which the Council had to act. Looking further to the future, we also discussed the preparations for the two intergovernmental conferences, or IGCs, which will start their work on 14 December.
For the conference on political union, the Council had before it a report by Foreign Ministers listing a wide range of possible institutional changes which the intergovernmental conference might consider. Heads of Government called for further work to be done on these proposals between now and December.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I argued that it would be wrong to prejudge the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference. We were on strong ground, since the Community's original decision to call the conference specified that it should set its own agenda. Nevertheless, others wished to give specific directions to the IGC. We therefore reserved the United Kingdom's position on, for example, extension of the Community's powers into new areas, greater powers for the European Parliament in the legislative sphere, defining European citizenship, and a common foreign and security policy. All these are issues for discussion at the intergovernmental conference itself rather than to be settled in advance.
On economic and monetary union, I stressed that we would be ready to move beyond the present position to the creation of a European monetary fund and a common Community currency which we have called a hard ecu. But we would not be prepared to agree to set a date for starting the next stage of economic and monetary union before there is any agreement on what that stage should comprise. And I again emphasised that we would not be prepared to have a single currency imposed upon us, nor to surrender the use of the pound sterling as our currency.
The hard ecu would be a parallel currency, not a single currency. If, as time went by, people and Governments chose to use it widely, it could evolve towards a single


currency. But our national currency would remain unless a decision to abolish it were freely taken by future generations of Parliament and people. A single currency is not the policy of this Government.
I should like to offer four comments in conclusion.
First, the Community finds it more difficult to take the urgent, detailed decisions than to discuss longer-term concepts. Moreover, no one should underestimate the extent to which national interests prevail among those who most proclaim their Community credentials.
Secondly, Britain intends to be part of the further political, economic and monetary development of the European Community. That is what the great majority of member states want, too. When we come to negotiate on particular points, rather than concepts or generalities, I believe that solutions will be found which will enable the Community to go forward as Twelve. That will be our objective.
Thirdly, we are fighting in Europe for British farmers, for British consumers, for a new world trade agreement, for help to the newly democratic countries of eastern Europe, and for the interests and concerns of our people.
Fourthly, while we fully accept our commitments under the treaties and wish to co-operate more closely with other countries in the European Community, we are determined to retain our fundamental ability to govern ourselves through Parliament. I believe that that is the wish of this House, and we on this side will do our best to see that it is fulfilled.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Lady for that statement and welcome the summit statements on, first, the complete solidarity of the Governments of the Community countries against Saddam Hussein and, secondly, economic support for the Soviet Union, Hungary and other central and east European countries.
On the central matter discussed in Rome, is it not clear that last weekend the Prime Minister managed to unite the rest of the European Community against her, to divide her own party and, more importantly, further to weaken the influence that Britain needs in order properly to uphold our national interests in the European Community? Can the Prime Minister tell us why she was apparently taken by surprise by the proposals put by others in Rome? Does she not recall that in 1985 she whipped and guillotined the Single European Act through the House, in June 1989 at Madrid she formally agreed with other heads of Government to be determined to achieve the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union, and at the Dublin summit this year she agreed to intensify the process of European union in economic, monetary and political terms? Those were all steps which raised comment at the time. Did she not know what she was doing on those occasions, or was she living in cloud cuckoo land?
The Prime Minister says that the Government would not surrender the use of the pound sterling as our currency. Perhaps she will therefore tell us how she regards the advice of her fellow Conservative, Commissioner Brittan, when he said:
You don't have to lose the pound sterling under the single currency plan. You can perfectly well have a note or a coin which states its value in pounds … and its fixed equivalent in ecu … It's been agreed that that would be possible.
On the connection between currency and sovereignty, can the Prime Minister, who abandoned her own Madrid conditions before she put sterling into the exchange rate mechanism, tell the House what will be her conditions now

for putting sterling into the narrow banding of the ERM? The Prime Minister could come to a debate and explain all these things from the Dispatch Box if she was willing to do so.
When the Prime Minister conducts herself as she did in Rome this weekend, is it any wonder that she cannot even get agreement for the necessary reduction in farm subsidies? [Interruption.] She has no influence at all. When she conducts herself as she does, is it any wonder that some members of her own party believe that she has undermined the Chancellor's efforts to build support for the so-called hard ecu? Does she not realise that such an attitude makes the Heads of other Governments even less susceptible to listening to the sensible arguments that can be deployed in favour of sovereignty in the Community? Does she accept that it is reasonable to put the view that the determinants of the pace and direction of economic and monetary union should be the realities of economic performance and the degree of economic convergence, not arbitrary diary dates?
Does the Prime Minister not understand that, with her method of conducting affairs, she is throwing away that sound argument and losing both potential allies and necessary influence? Does she not appreciate that, even now, her tantrum tactics will not stop the process of change or change anything in the process of change? All they do is strand Britain in a European second division without the influence over change that we need, the financial and industrial opportunities that we need and the sovereignty that we need.

The Prime Minister: It is our purpose to retain the power and influence of this House, rather than denude it of many of its powers. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman's policy is, in view of some of the things that he said. Would he have agreed to a commitment to extend the Community's powers to other supplementary sectors of economic integration without having any definition of what they are? One would have thought, from what he said, that he would. The Commission wants to extend its powers and competence into health matters, but we said no, we would not agree to that.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said, it sounded as though he would agree, for the sake of agreeing, and for being Little Sir Echo, and saying, "Me, too." Would the right hon. Gentleman have agreed to extending qualified majority voting within the Council, to delegating implementing powers to the Commission, to a common security policy, all without any attempt to define or limit them? The answer is yes. He does not have a clue about the definition of some of the things that he is saying, let alone securing a definition of others.
We have agreed to wait to give support to the Soviet Union until the IMF report is received. That is coming at the next summit.
It was not we who stopped unity on agriculture—it was France and Germany. Had the right hon. Gentleman even read the statement, which he had before I came in, he would have noticed—and had he even listened to the statement when I made it, he would have known—that it was Francois Mitterand who said that he would not agree to the Commission's proposal. We are not to blame in any way for not reaching agreement on agriculture. But for the insistence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and me, the chair would not even have had the matter discussed, so urgent was it that


it should be. I told the chair over a week ago that, if the farm Ministers did not reach agreement, we must discuss the matter, and I wrote to him. He did everything that he could to see that a matter so urgent was not discussed, but we succeeded in getting it discussed.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's strictures about economic and monetary union, that phrase was agreed by the European Community before we went in. It is one of those things that we inherited. It was agreed in 1972. When it came to defining it—[Interruption.] We went into the Community in 1973, and I had understood that most Labour Members were in favour of that. I wonder today if they are changing their stance for the sake of debating points.
Leon Brittan is a loyal member of the Commission. Yes, the Commission wants to increase its powers. Yes, it is a non-elected body and I do not want the Commission to increase its powers at the expense of the House, so of course we differ. The President of the Commission, Mr. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the Executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.
Perhaps the Labour party would give all those things up easily. Perhaps it would agree to a single currency and abolition of the pound sterling. Perhaps, being totally incompetent in monetary matters, it would be only too delighted to hand over full responsibility to a central bank, as it did to the IMF. The fact is that the Labour party has no competence on money and no competence on the economy—so, yes, the right hon. Gentleman would be glad to hand it all over. What is the point of trying to get elected to Parliament only to hand over sterling and the powers of this House to Europe? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will understand his brief a little better next time.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose——

Hon. Members: Speak for Germany.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ridley.

Mr. Ridley: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on standing up for the interests of the people of this country and ask her whether she thinks that the eleven are not now both isolated and intransigent in relation to agricultural policy and the GATT round? Does she think that they are deliberately working for the failure of the GATT round in order to achieve their objectives of a fortress Europe? If they are, does she agree that that is not a destination for which we want to board the train?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right. The European community is the only group of nations which, after years of studying the problem, has not tabled an initial negotiating position on agriculture in the GATT round. The United States, Japan, the Cairns group, Canada and Switzerland have tabled theirs, but from the Community—nothing. It really is a disgrace that we have not even been able to agree on a negotiating position, let alone start to negotiate with all the other groups by between now and the end of the year.
Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend that several countries in the Community are highly protectionist. The common agricultural policy is a protectionist policy, but we will try to reduce the protectionism, first because it would help the third world, secondly because it would mean that we would not have export subsidies—and thereby take business away from other countries—and thirdly because in this country we believe in open trade. This was the most serious matter to be discussed at the European Council, and I most earnestly hope that this time Agriculture Ministers—there will be no difficulty with us, but I mean the French and German Agriculture Ministers—will accept the proposals of the Commission for the negotiating position in the Uruguay round.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise how welcome it was to hear in her statement that she has at last been forced to admit that the hard ecu proposal can be a transitional mechanism to a single currency? Will she congratulate the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary on levering her forward towards reality on that matter? Does she realise that that is good news for Britain?
Does the right hon. Lady realise how much of her performance at Rome was bad news for Britain? Does she realise that in a single meeting she has isolated this country in Europe, weakened our voice in Europe, divided the Government and betrayed this country's long-term best interests? Does she realise that if she faced a Labour party that was not equally divided, muddled and confused on this matter, she would today face a motion of no confidence in her failure at this historic moment? Does she realise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that for as long as she hangs on to power, so long will Britain be held back from its future, and that she no longer speaks for Britain—she speaks for the past?

The Prime Minister: Oh dear, it seems that there must be quite a lot of late parrots in cloud cuckoo land, judging by the right hon. Gentleman coming out with that stuff. Of course, if there is a parallel currency and people choose to make more and more use of it, it could evolve into a single currency, but that could not be done without a decision coming back to this House and, I believe, to the people of this country. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to abolish the pound sterling, the greatest expression of sovereignty. In any event, it would be totally and utterly wrong to agree to that now. That matter is one to be decided by future generations and future Parliaments. Parliament is supreme, not the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Robin Squire: In the light of last weekend's discussions, will my right hon. Friend reconsider in the near future the proposal to separate the Bank of England and make it independent so that it may serve as a buttress in this country's battle against inflation?

The Prime Minister: Independent banks are mostly either answerable to a parliament—as in the United States, where Mr. Greenspan is answerable to Congress—or have a number of politicians on their boards. I do not believe that the structure that this country currently has would be


served well by the proposal that my hon. Friend mentions. It is far better to increase democracy than to reduce it, which I believe would be wrong at this time.

Mr. James Lamond: What is the point of the Prime Minister trying to wrap herself in the union jack for electoral purposes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Better that than the red flag."]—and then coming to the Dispatch Box to tell the House that she is prepared to sell the working people of this country down the river by opening Britain up completely to free trade without any protectionism whatsoever, destroy the multi-fibre arrangement, and give the emerging democracies in Europe £1,000 million in loans to produce goods on wages of £80 a month, so that textiles in particular will flood into this country, which would destroy hundreds of thousands of British jobs? Is that what the right hon. Lady was elected to do? Is she really protecting this country, or is she only pretending to do so?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman probably heard the comment made by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, "Better to wrap yourself in the union jack than the red flag." The hon. Gentleman's remarks amount to a totally protectionist policy, which would lead to retaliation against us, reduce the capability of our export industries and therefore our standard of living, and make our industries inefficient and therefore cost the housewife a great deal more.
I note also that the hon. Gentleman complains about goods entering Britain from Third world countries where wages are far lower. I have heard the hon. Gentleman say several times in the House that Third world countries need help. They need trade as much as they need aid.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mark of a single currency is not only that all other currencies must be extinguished but that the capacity of other institutions to issue currencies must also be extinguished? In the case of the United Kingdom, that would involve Parliament binding its successors in a way that it has hitherto regarded as unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This Government have no intention of abolishing the pound sterling. If the hard ecu were to evolve and much greater use were to be made of it, that would be a decision for future Parliaments and generations. That decision could be taken only once.
It should not be taken in the current atmosphere, but only after the greatest possible consideration. I believe that both Parliament and sterling have served this country and the rest of the world very well. We are more stable and influential with sterling, and it is an expression of our sovereignty. This Government believe in the pound sterling.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Prime Minister recall that Britain was in a minority of one in the Europe of 1940? Does she further agree that, 50 years on, the basic issue is still the same—undiluted parliamentary democracy and not imposed diktat?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There are some things for which there was majority voting within the Community when we went in, and we accepted that, and for the specific objective of achieving the Single European Act only, there have been

more matters. Now there is an attempt to get far more things passed by majority voting. That means that we would have more laws imposed upon us, even if the House was flatly against them. We expect our people to obey the law, mainly because it has gone through all the legislative processes in this House, and we should be very slow to add to any majority competence on the part of the Community.

Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is wide support in my constituency for the stance that she took at the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union? Does she further accept that that support is based not on the niceties of international economics but on the clear and firm belief that those who dictate fiscal policy to the United Kingdom should be fully and directly answerable to its electors?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The Delors report is proposing that those people should be answerable to no one. It is very ironic indeed that, at a time when eastern Europe is striving for greater democracy, the Commission should be striving to extinguish democracy and to put more and more power into its own hands, or into the hands of non-elected bodies.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Is it not true that the British Government are far more reluctant than Germany, France or Italy to give economic assistance to the Soviet Union? Is the Prime Minister not aware of the political risks within the Soviet Union if we do not respond generously at this time, and of the long-term risks for British industry if other countries step in and establish aid and trading relationships with the Soviet Union before we do?

The Prime Minister: The German banks—the Deutsche bank—made a considerable loan to the Soviet Union of some DM6 billion. That had all gone within a matter of weeks. It was guaranteed by the Government of the Federal Republic, and it was all gone in a matter of weeks—used to repay debts which the Soviet Union owed to German manufacturers. That has done nothing to help the economic situation in the Soviet Union.
When we got the request for help, we suggested that we should not consider general loans which would not help a country that was already in difficulties, but should see if we could give specific help in certain spheres—for example food processing, transport and oil exploration. We are studying that, and the International Monetary Fund is judging what it is necessary for the Soviet economy to do to get it out of its present difficulties.
Fortunately, between the Houston economic summit and now, the Soviet Union has had a windfall in the sense that the increasing price of oil has given it a much better balance of payments position on a much greater scale than here, so that has improved its position. We shall make up our minds when the IMF has reported.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: If these partners of ours—France and Germany—persist in blocking the reform of the common agricultural policy in December, what useful purpose does my right hon. Friend think that the intergovernmental conference is likely to achieve?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on it absolutely. Agriculture and trade are two


subjects in which, as national countries, we have no competence at all as it is all negotiated through the Community. They can therefore do that—they can even do it in the Agriculture Council—by majority voting. If France and Germany stick together and refuse to have reductions in their subsidies, many of the other countries where farmers are far poorer than those in France and Germany will say, "How in the world can we agree to lower subsidies when the Community's two sets of richest farmers will not do so?"
I hope that the compromise solution that the Commission hammered out with Agriculture Ministers will nevertheless go through, but that is only the start, not the end, of the negotiating position with other countries; otherwise, we shall be responsible for reducing world trade.

Dr. David Owen: Is it not perfectly clear that what was being attempted at Rome was a bounce which led only one way—to a single federal united states of Europe? Is it not vital that, in this House and across party lines, it should be possible for a Prime Minister to make it clear, if necessary, that Britain is prepared to stand alone? We should not relish it, but if we were faced with the imposition by treaty of a single currency and with a situation that prevented the enlargement of the Community to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, would not Britain be entitled and right to use the veto?

The Prime Minister: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the stance that we took. It is the stance that we have taken on many previous occasions. The European monetary system to which we belong is designed for 12 sovereign states, in co-operation with one another, to come to an exchange rate mechanism. What is being proposed now—economic and monetary union—is the back door to a federal Europe, which we totally and utterly reject. We prefer greater economic and monetary co-operation, which can be achieved by keeping our sovereignty.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree and confirm that her words today mean in effect that she would prefer to withdraw from the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act?.

The Prime Minister: No. We should like to have the kind of Europe that we believe in and the Europe that we went in to join. If my hon. Friend looks back at some of the speeches, he will see that we were absolutely assured that we should not be giving up sovereignty. That was the basis upon which we went in. On 24 May 1971 the Prime Minister said:
We agreed in particular that the identity of national states should be maintained in the framework of the developing Community. This means, of course, that, though the European Commission has made and will continue to make a valuable contribution, the Council of Ministers should continue to be the forum in which important decisions are taken, … It provides a clear assurance, … that joining the Community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty."—[Official Report. 24 May 1971; Vol. 818, c. 32–33.]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Despite what the Prime Minister has just said, is it not clear that it is the

wish of our partners that there should be a loss of national identity on currency? Is it not true that even the hard ecu, coupled with fixed exchange rates, would lead inexorably to economic and monetary union and to government either of bankers for bankers by bankers or to a strong political central government that would usher in a new Euro-state? If the Prime Minister is to save Britain as a self-governing nation, had she not better make that clear and galvanise the people of this country and all parties in Parliament to say a very polite no to economic and monetary union?

The Prime Minister: If I believed that, I would do just as the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not believe that his interpretation is correct. I accept that many in the Economic Community would like to have their version of economic and monetary union, which would lead to passing powers away from national Parliaments to a non-elected body—in fact, to a central board of bankers—to majority voting and to the giving of more legislative power to the European Parliament. That is their version, but it is not the version that we have accepted. The Single European Act defined economic and monetary union as
Co-operation in Economic and Monetary policy".
That is all you need, in my view. The hard ecu is a proposal that does not require a central bank, which would make it an inflation-proof currency and which could be used if people chose to do so. In my view, it would not become widely used throughout the Community—[Interruption.] —possibly most widely used for commercial transactions. Many people would continue to prefer their own currency.
Therefore, I do not believe that the fears of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will happen. I am pretty certain that most people in this country would prefer to continue to use sterling. If, by their choice, I was wrong, there would come a time when we would have to address the question. However, that would not be for us but for future generations in the House.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time between now and the conference in December to explain to her European colleagues what any first-year economic student could tell them, which is that the imposition of a single currency, as opposed to a common currency, would rule out for all time the most effective means of adjusting for national differences in costs and prices? Will she explain that that in turn would cause widespread unemployment, which would probably exist on a perpetual basis, and very serious financial imbalances?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It would do just that. It would also mean that there would have to be enormous transfers of money from one country to another. It would cost us a great deal of money. One reason why some of the poorer countries want it is that they would get those big transfers of money. We are trying to contest that. If we have a single currency or a locked currency, the differences come out substantially in unemployment or vast movements of people from one country to another. Many people who talk about a single currency have never considered its full implications.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Prime Minister ignore the advice of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who talked about the British state standing alone? Will she bear in mind her humiliating experience when she was forced into the ERM


against all her instincts and her declaration in Madrid? Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in Europe, not only in the United Kingdom, are aware of the formidable economic, political and social problems inherent in stage 2 and moving to a single currency? Does she not think that she would have a far better chance of getting people to talk about a sensible and cautious approach if, in addressing her colleagues in Europe, she used the moderate language of a 21st-century European and not the intemperate language of a little Englander?

The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman was not there, will he tell me of any language that was intemperate? Those who seem to know most about this are the people who were not there and heard nothing of what was said or of the way in which it was done. Radio and television broadcasts are outside and after the finish of the conference.
We have always said that we would join the exchange rate mechanism when the time was right. That was part of our going into the European monetary system, to which we have belonged for many years. We have put some of our reserves with the European monetary system and have the usual swap arrangements that that entails. The completion of the European monetary system is the exchange rate mechanism. All that can be done by nation states co-operating with one another We do not need to have a federal structure at all.
The time came when most of the other countries had abolished their foreign exchange controls and we had led them, way ahead. Yes, I think that it was we and Germany who were isolated in that we got rid of foreign exchange controls first. The others followed, but Spain still has not done so. When they had done that, and when we adjudged that the time was right—I think that every figure that has come out since has indicated that we were right in our timing of joining the ERM and in reducing the interest rate—we completed our obligation to join. That does not mean that we agree with the next stage, which is a totally different definition of economic and monetary union.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for the British people enjoying a higher standard of living and sharing in greater prosperity will depend in no small part on securing a currency that is strong and stable—something that has dogged us in the post-war years? Is that not more likely to be achieved if we have a common currency based on the great economies of western Europe rather than relying on our going it alone?

The Prime Minister: No, I think that many of my colleagues in Europe—in our European Council and certainly in the Finance Council—will say that there is no way in which there can be a single currency until all economies are at the same state of development, the same state of prosperity and in a Europe with one economy right across it. I do not think that there is any possibility of that stage being reached for a very long time. To take a single currency long before that has happened would be to weaken it and not to strengthen it. We will have a stronger sterling, with all its history. Many securities and contracts are denominated in sterling. We shall trade better with the great history behind sterling than we possibly could with a single currency.

Mr. Ron Leighton: There is no majority in the House for EMU, but is the Prime Minister aware that I attended a conference in Italy last year at which an Italian Minister spoke to me about EMU? I said, "What if Mrs. Thatcher opposes it?" Ungallantly, he laughed out loud and said, "We have met Mrs. Thatcher many times—she squawks and makes a noise at the beginning but always comes round and gives way in the end." What assurances and guarantees can the Prime Minister give the House that she will not give way on this issue, as she gave way on the Madrid condition about British inflation before joining the ERM?

The Prime Minister: That is what they said when I was negotiating for a better budget deal for Britain. Twice, the people in the Commission—our people in the Commission and the presidency of the Commission—advised me to give way. They found out differently.

Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree——

Hon. Members: We cannot hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are not alone m that.

Mr. Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a grave risk that unless the Community can get its negotiating position together the GATT round of talks may collapse in the next few months? If that happens, it would be no dry, academic exercise but would mean higher costs for consumers in many countries in the next few years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Community's compromise proposals on agriculture, which have been rejected, are ludicrously modest? Will she urge our colleagues in the Community to try to reach a solution—if not now, at least during the next IGC?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. If we do not reach a solution in Geneva in the Uruguay round, it will mean retaliation against us, and people's worst fears—that the Economic Community is nothing but a fortress Europe and a protectionist club—will be realised. If we did not get a result on the agriculture round, it would not be our fault but the fault of France and Germany. There are certain protectionist elements in France, as my right hon. Friend knows. Even when we get our own negotiating position, as I hope that we shall within a week, I hope that it will be on the basis that we have been negotiating for six previous meetings. We still have to have negotiations on the other proposals that we put up with all the countries. There is still a tough way to go before we get a conclusion, but the important thing—important for the welfare of all our people—is that that round meets with success.

Mr. Jack Ashley: A single European currency means loss of control over our monetary policy. Our monetary policy has been an absolute shambles, so what is the Prime Minister fussing about?

The Prime Minister: Monetary policy was in its greatest shambles under Labour, when inflation reached 27 per cent.

Sir Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, if the procrastination about export subsidies by the European Community on surplus


food continues, with the result that the Uruguay round collapses and the United States then resorts to a protectionist policy in self-defence, the one country in the EC that will suffer will be the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we always try for open trading. We also try to defend our farmers to see that they get a fair deal because, mostly, the subsidies in Europe go to the smaller farmers. By subsidising the smaller farmers, the efficiency of the larger family farm is undercut. We will do everything that we can to ensure that the picture that my hon. Friend has painted does not come about.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Does the Prime Minister agree that her isolation at the Rome summit will seriously damage Wales's prospects of benefiting under the single market, and from the exports and investment opportunities that will arise? Does she also agree that Wales, which is on the periphery of Europe, needs to be at the heart of the decision-making process in Europe and that a positive approach to Europe is needed? Does not her isolationist stance prove that Wales needs direct representation in the Community institutions?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's strictures would have been better directed to France and Germany, which have taken an isolationist stance on agricultural subsidies for three years. It would have been very much better if they had come along with the rest instead of sticking out for their own farmers against the good of the EC as a whole. It was those countries which were isolated on that most urgent matter.
As for investment, Wales—like the rest of the United Kingdom—has benefited enormously from the economic policies of this Government. We have brought in tons and tons of investment from overseas to Wales, to Scotland and to the north of England, greatly to the benefit of jobs here. People have great confidence in this Government, which is why they invest in Britain. What a pity the hon. Gentleman cannot speak up a little more for his own country.

Mr. Tony Favell: Next Wednesday, the doors of this Chamber will be closed to Black Rod as a symbol of the independence of this House. What would be the effect on the independence of this House and on the nation that elects it if the power to veto proposals affecting social affairs, the environment and taxation were to be removed?

The Prime Minister: I hope that, when the next election comes, people who want to come to the House will come to uphold its powers and its responsibilities, and not to denude the House of them. We have surrendered some of them to the Community, and in my view we have surrendered enough.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that what we are really discussing is not economic management, but the whole future of relations between this country and Europe? This issue is not best expressed in 19th-century patriotic language or in emotive language about which design is on the currency. The real question is whether, when the British people vote in a general election, they will be able to change the policies of the

previous Government. It is already a fact, as the House knows full well, that whatever Government are in power, our agricultural policy is controlled from Brussels, our trade policy is controlled from Brussels and our industrial policy is controlled from Brussels. If we go into EMU, our financial policy will also be controlled. It is a democratic argument, not a nationalistic argument.
However, given that the right hon. Lady is a member of the Government who took us into the European Community without consulting the British people, given that she was Prime Minister in the Government who agreed to the Single European Act without consulting the British people, and given that she has now agreed to joining the exchange rate mechanism without consulting the British people, we find it hard to believe that she is really intent on preserving democracy rather than gaining political advantage by waving some national argument around on the eve of a general election. That is why we do not trust her judgment on the matter.

The Prime Minister: I think that I would put it just a little differently from the right hon. Gentleman, although I recognise some of the force of some of the points that he makes. When the Delors proposals for economic and monetary union came out, it was said immediately by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not really about monetary policy at all but about a back door to a federal Europe, taking many democratic powers away from democratically elected bodies and giving them to non-elected bodies. I believe fervently that that is true, which is why I shall have nothing to do with their definition of economic and monetary union.
We shall continue the co-operation that we have come to establish, as nation states. The Act that enabled us to go into Europe was passed on Second Reading by eight votes and it was made very clear then that we would not surrender our national identity, that it was a matter of co-operation. It was on the strength of that that many people went in. I am afraid that it would be quite different if we went for a single European currency and a central bank and for their definition of economic and monetary union.

Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how far she believes that, when the moment comes, Germany will be prepared to see the transfer of its monetary policy from the Bundesbank to a European central bank on which it will have one voice out of 12?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is wrong to think that all the Twelve have similar votes or influence in these matters. I think that some in Germany—only some—are backing the scheme because they know that the dominant voice, the predominant voice, on any central bank would be the German voice. If we did not retain our national identities in Europe, the dominant people in Europe would be German. The way to balance out the different views of Europe, as we have traditionally done throughout history, is by retaining our national identity.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the imminent deaths of thousands of young men—Arab, European and American—would it not be more compassionate and realistic of the Prime Minister to abandon her adamant refusal even to contemplate a negotiated solution to the Gulf crisis?

The Prime Minister: I have not noticed much compassion about Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, about the way in which our hostages, our embassies or the nationals in Kuwait have been treated. There is nothing to negotiate about.

Mr. Faulds: There is everything to negotiate about, you stupid woman——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: You stupid, negative woman.

The Prime Minister: I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air—the rather nauseating stench of appeasement.
The United Nations has clearly said that Iraq must come out of Kuwait——

Mr. Faulds: Have your war. You would love a war. You love war.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very bad behaviour from the hon. Gentleman. He has asked a question and he is getting the answer. He may not like it, but he must not shout in that way.

The Prime Minister: Saddam Hussein started a war, and it continues day after day with the killing, murder, torture and brutal treatment of people. Some people—and most Members of the House—have the guts to stand up to him.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Prime Minister, may I ask you why you have been so modest this afternoon? In the past, have you not stood alone on European matters and been proved right? I am thinking of United Kingdom contributions, of the reform of the common agricultural policy, of mortgage cartels and of exchange controls. Each time, Prime Minister, you have been right. Why should the House not trust you today?

The Prime Minister: May I thank my knight in shining armour? I could not have put it better myself.

Mr. Dave Nellist: When preparing the statement on the Gulf that the Prime Minister has said was agreed in Rome, was the right hon. Lady aware of the existence of publicly available estimates by American chiefs of staff that within 12 days of combat there would be 30,000 allied casualties, and that 10,000 of them would be fatalities? If she disagrees with the American estimates, can she tell us what estimates have been made by the British chiefs of staff?

The Prime Minister: I remember when this country had to send forces down to the Falklands. Chiefs of staff were frequently asked what were their estimates of casualties. No one can make such an estimate.

Mr. Nellist: The Americans have.

The Prime Minister: No one can make such an estimate. There are people who can guess, but those guesses have turned out before to be very wide of the mark. It is not a question that I ask, because I know the impossibility of answering it.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the valiant stand that she has been taking to fight for Britain's economic and

parliamentary independence in Europe? Will she emphasise that standing apart from the eleven's plans for European monetary union may bring positive economic benefits to Britain? Does she agree that the country with the strongest currency, one of the highest per capita incomes and one of the strongest financial services industries in Europe, is economically and politically independent Switzerland? Does she also agree, therefore, that economic independence is no barrier to economic success?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. Switzerland has a marvellous record on currency, manufacturing and services, and we too shall continue to do so if others go for a single currency and we stay outside.

Mr. Giles Radice: The right hon. Lady has referred to the 11 other European leaders as living in cloud cuckoo land. Has it not occurred to her that she may be living in cloud cuckoo land if she thinks that the majority of the British people are likely to go along with her short-sighted proposals on economic and monetary union, which are likely to lead to Britain's being excluded from Europe's first division?

The Prime Minister: No, I think that that is totally wrong. I note that the hon. Gentleman believes in a single currency regardless of the many consequences that it would have for this country—regardless of how much we would have to transfer, and regardless of the enormous consequences for our securities. I do not believe that his view is shared by many of the people.

Mr. Radice: We shall see.

The Prime Minister: Indeed we shall, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that most people prefer to have the pound sterling and our Parliament. If he does not wish to have either, why does he want to come here after the next election?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that the success of the Uruguay round and the GATT is vital to the economies of the new democracies in Latin America and the third world? Does she not agree that fine words in Rome butter no tortillas?

The Prime Minister: I agree. We can always talk about the generalities. When it came to getting down to a detailed negotiation, they did not even want to address the subject there. They ran away from it. They then said that they should set a stage 2 without having decided on its contents. We do not know what we are going to do in stage 2 yet, but they have set a date for it. That is very different from what Delors said in his report, when he stated clearly:
The conditions for moving from stage to stage cannot be defined precisely in advance: nor is it possible to foresee today when these conditions will be realised. The setting of explicit deadlines is therefore not advisable.
What a pity he did not stick to that advice, but tried to change it at the last meeting in Rome.

Ms. Diane Abbott: On the question of hostages, will the Prime Minister accept that many hundreds of families in this country, including my constituent Mrs. Maggie Ross, whose husband Alistair has been held hostage at a military installation for three months, will have listened with great care to what she said, and in particular to what she said


about there being no question of negotiation? Many of those families will have been bitterly disappointed because, although they may understand her reasons, many of them fear that, where military adventurism is concerned, the lives of the hostages are expendable.

The Prime Minister: I always understand people's anxiety about relatives who are hostages. In my constituency I have perhaps been fortunate in that we were able to welcome home again a young girl aged 12. Of course one understands that anxiety. However, if we were to take it that we could never take action against a brutal dictator because he held hostages, we should never take action against such a dictator and he would be free to continue his ways. He would always take a few more hostages to prevent justice being done and to prevent territory and people's homes being recovered.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the prosperity of all the people within the European Economic Community is more likely to be achieved by the successful achievement of a single market without barriers than by dreaming dreams of a federal Europe, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) so courageously said earlier this afternoon? Will my right hon. Friend never stop reminding her colleagues in Europe that Britain has actually implemented more of the single market measures than any other country and that we have therefore been the best proponents of prosperity in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the reason for founding the treaty of Rome was not only to bring down barriers within the six countries which joined it at the time, but to be an example to the rest of the world to bring down barriers without as well, so that we should genuinely have much freer trade and a much freer flow of trade to the benefit of trading countries and also to third world countries.
It is therefore vital that we complete the single market and the Uruguay round. We have got on fairly well with the directives. My hon. Friend's recollection is correct. We and Denmark have not only passed the directives but have implemented most of them. We have only 15 or 16 to implement, while Denmark has 15. As I have said, the record of the rest of the Community varies very much in spite of the grand words. When it comes to the practical deeds, they do not match up to the grand words. The chair was taken by Italy and Italy has yet to implement 62 directives. Perhaps that explains why we went to grand words and not to specific practical suggestions.

Mr. Stuart Bell: In one of the emollient passages of her statement earlier, the Prime Minister said that she believed that solutions could be found for the Community so that it could advance as 12. As the Prime Minister is aware, changes to the treaty are required in order to advance monetary and economic union. Those amendments to the treaty will come forward at the intergovernmental conferences in December. Is she now telling the House that she will not be using her veto power at those conferences?

The Prime Minister: We have been through one intergovernmental conference before. That was the one which led to the Single European Act, which the hon.

Gentleman will recall. It started up with very grandiose and rather vague designs. It finished up as a very much more modest document which we were able to sign up to. I believe that that is what will happen in the intergovernmental conferences here. Many, when they look more closely at it, will not want to have a single currency unless they can have enormous transfers of money, and I do not think that those would be forthcoming.
Many will look at some of the other divestment of powers and not want to do that. Undoubtedly, there are some who are prepared to divest their powers and put them over to someone else. They would prefer not necessarily to have the responsibility for some of the difficult things that have to be done. I believe that most of the nation states would prefer to keep their nationality and their national identity. Therefore, there will be a great deal of negotiating. As the hon. Gentleman said, we can have a new treaty only if all Parliaments ratify it.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a single European currency is not a soft option but a harsh option and that the introduction of a single currency, without first achieving a single European market and then a single European economy, would be an extremely harsh option? Does my right hon. Friend accept also that it would benefit neither the consumer nor the producer fairly but merely the bureaucrat, and therefore lead us down a trail towards not only a federal Europe but an undemocratic, bureaucratic federal Europe?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholly with what my hon. Friend has said. When the discussions about the currency and the economic and monetary union get to the Finance Ministers, they will be very much more practical than some of the Heads of Government are about these matters. I am sure that our colleagues will have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say many times that many of his colleagues are very worried about any suggestion of a single currency before we have almost a common economy or an economy with about similar prosperity. It just would not work. Once one goes to a single currency, all the differences would come out in heavy unemployment and in massive movements of people. [Interruption.] Socialist countries such as France already have much heavier unemployment than we have. All the differences will come out in even heavier unemployment and massive movements of people from where they had previously been living to where they work.

Mr. Ron Brown: Since today the Prime Minister is a great advocate of democracy, will she allow service men and service women the democratic right to join a trade union? If she agrees with that right, she will find that service men and service women in the Gulf would vote against war in that area because they believe in negotiation rather than confrontation.

The Prime Minister: No, our present arrangements have served this country supremely well.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the past 20 years or so many people, particularly young people, have been persuaded to support the Conservative party instead of the Labour party because of our commitment to Europe? In that context, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is increasing sadness among those people about this


country's apparent inability to respond in a positive manner to any proposals involving political and financial convergence and environmental issues?

The Prime Minister: On environmental issues, my hon. Friend will see that we reached agreement yesterday, and he will find that 95 per cent. of our rivers are rated good or fair, which is better than any other European country's record. We have a programme for looking after our beaches and also for improving the quality of water—about £28 billion. We are the only country with such a programme. My hon. Friend will find many places in Europe which have nothing like the quality of water that we have.
My hon. Friend will find also that the question is not whether we are Europeans and key Europeans, as we are, but what sort of Europe we want—that is, whether we want a democratically responsible Europe, or whether we want a Europe of nation states which freely co-operate together. That is every bit as honourable and worthy an objective as trying to make it less democratic and trying to dissolve one's natural loyalties to one's country.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not true that, on Europe, the Prime Minister is in the minority in the Cabinet and is not so much the leader of the Tory party on these issues as the leader of one of its many factions? On the Gulf, does the Prime Minister agree that all those who talk about attempts to resolve conflicts and difficulties arising from the invasion of Kuwait by negotiation, surely what has been demonstrated over the past weekend is that all the efforts of the Soviet representative in his mission to Iraq to try to persuade the dictator to give concessions have totally failed? There is not the slightest sign that Saddam Hussein intends to withdraw from Kuwait. Why should one of the most notorious of all dictators, who has committed a criminal act in the invasion of Kuwait and who has committed untold crimes and atrocities in Kuwait since 2 August, be allowed to get away with it?

The Prime Minister: Precisely—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better address that question to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I shall allow three more questions from each side. I regret that we must then move on.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Many hon. Members and, I suspect, many people in Europe will have the most profound respect for the discipline and informed pragmatism that the Prime Minister brings to the discussion of these matters. Does she agree that there is a great danger that the vision of a united Europe bequeathed to us by the great founders, including Winston Churchill, whom I believe was a federalist, could be at best blurred and at worst damaged if, in contemplating the complex, difficult procedures of integrating Europe we dare not consider at any stage any change, however small and however slowly achieved, in the balance of powers between this House and the European Parliament?

The Prime Minister: That is not quite correct. We went in on the basis that was clearly set out—that we were in fact not in any way going to lose our national identity and—if my hon. Friend looks back over the debate, nor would any strong national interest be overriden. That was the

fundamental basis on which we got a majority of eight for the Second Reading of the Bill which took us into the Community. I believe that that was a very honourable way to go about it, and I believe that it is a very honourable objective to keep our national identity and have co-operation.
When it came to things like wanting a single market, if we were to get some of the directives through, we had to get a little bit more majority voting. That particular batch of majority voting under that single European Act, should cease when we have the single European market. Apart from that, it is better if we go forward by agreement between us all, because we have to get agreement anyway for changing the treaty. As my hon. Friend knows, we have recently completed the European monetary system by joining the exchange rate mechanism. That is for us an extra discipline for keeping down inflation, and it is also very welcome in Europe.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: During her discussions on the Gulf when, presumably, the Prime Minister was pressing for the Baghdad leadership to pay compensation for war crimes in the destruction of Kuwait, did the Prime Minister make any proposals to recompense the victims of the other illegal occupation in the middle east—that of the West Bank and Gaza? In her concern—I paraphrase the Prime Minister—for the unity of the international community on United Nations decisions, did she press the case of the Palestinians for decades have been having their land stolen, their homes demolished and their citizens killed? Why is Kuwaiti blood more precious than Palestinian blood? Is it because it is tinged with oil?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will be aware that both situations are extremely serious and that both are very different. Kuwait had never threatened to attack or attacked anyone. She wanted only to live in peace. Unfortunately, Jordan attacked Israel. I think that she was begged not to, but she did, and that finished up by Jordan losing part of Jerusalem and losing the West Bank. The West Bank is not annexed to Israel. It has been the subject of many United Nations resolutions, some of which the Arab world did not accept for a long time, but which have been accepted more recently, in the past two years, by the Palestinians and Mr. Arafat. We have been working together, as has the Community for years, from the Venice declaration, to try to find a solution to that problem. It is not easy. It is easier to talk about it than to find a solution on the basis of resolution 242, but we continue to do so.
If the hon. Lady looks at the communique, she will see that we discussed this matter and that we are taking forward our previous policies. When this matter is settled and when Kuwait has been restored to the people of Kuwait, we shall continue to go ahead on the basis of our previous policy, which is negotiation. We have previously said that we would be in favour of an international conference so that the previous policies could be taken forward.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people both here and elsewhere in Europe are concerned about the predominance of Germany in the European Community, but that the answer does not lie in a federal Europe because the majority voting system already contains Germany, and to move down the federal route and to go for a central bank would do no more than ensure that that central hank was


dominated by the economic realities and the strength of the deutschmark? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are far better off making sure that we have a wider Europe in which we have a balance of interests, including people from east, west and central Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am totally against a federal Europe and believe that the overwhelming majority of people in this country are against a federal Europe. We should not take any steps in that direction, but should uphold co-operation between our peoples. Of course, Germany will continue to be a very important country in the Community. Chancellor Kohl is always very European in his approach and very generous in his help to the eastern European countries. It is better that we negotiate with Germany as it is now and with the United Kingdom as we are now and that we do not try to have a kind of united states of Europe. It is one thing to have a United States of America from a newly settled country, but it is a different thing for ancient nation states, each with its own traditions.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Although the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party sits at present on the Opposition side of the House, is the Prime Minister aware that we are shocked at the somersault of policy that has taken place in the British Labour party, which is now prepared to sacrifice the democratic rights of the British people and to accept instead economic policies that are imposed by a bureaucracy based outside this country? In her statement the Prime Minister said that the Government's policy was to oppose a single currency, but I notice that she is now qualifying that with a new adjective and referring to an "imposed " single currency. Has the Prime Minister really shifted her position slightly, and is she now saying that she is prepared to negotiate for an agreed single currency? The matter needs to be clarified.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at our debate, he will find that it was clearly spelled out that we have proposed a hard ecu, which will be inflation-proofed, and that that is a parallel or common currency and not a single currency. However, by choice, if people used it, it could evolve into a single currency. Before any single currency comes about, it would be for future Parliaments and future generations to decide if they wished to abolish the national currency. This Government are against a single currency, but it is not for us to bind our successors in 20 or 30 years' time.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: What evidence does my right hon. Friend have that the bulk of industry and business, upon the success of which our national livelihood depends, is in any way reluctant to see the ordered emergence of a single currency as a logical consequence to the completion of the single market?

The Prime Minister: A single market and a single currency are two totally different things, as a short study of them would reveal. Some of the great manufacturing nations, such as Japan, the United States and Switzerland, do not have a common or a single currency with anyone else. They have a single currency of their own, and that does not hinder or affect their manufacturing position. Neither does it affect our position as the greatest financial

centre in Europe that we are not like the yen, but we are sterling and that we are not like the dollar, but we are sterling. We trade in them all.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Surely the Prime Minister understands that virtually every Member of the House of Commons agrees about the absolute necessity of securing Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. Does she agree that the unanimous Council declaration on the Gulf crisis, with its references to "a peaceful solution" and to the importance of maintaining consensus in the United Nations Security Council is to be warmly welcomed? Is it not clear from the declaration that the Governments of the European Community would not support early military action led by the United States? Can the right hon. Lady therefore give us the assurance that the Government's policy will be consistent with that declaration and that they will give mandatory economic sanctions proper time to work?

The Prime Minister: This matter was dealt with when we debated it in the House. We do not believe in letting any aggressor know what action we propose to take or when. We already have full legal authority under article 51 and through the request of the Emir of Kuwait. The position would undoubtedly be best resolved if Saddam Hussein withdrew totally from Kuwait, if the legitimate Government of Kuwait were restored and if Iraq agreed to pay compensation. Through the United Nations, we could then negotiate with Saddam Hussein about ending the manufacture of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and about Iraq having a much smaller armed force so that we would never be put in the same position again. Whether this matter can be resolved peacefully depends totally on Saddam Hussein unreservedly accepting the United Nations resolutions.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible for me to call all the hon. Members who wish to participate——

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good getting frustrated about it. I have done my best today to call hon. Members who were not called when the Prime Minister last returned from a summit——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I have done my best today to call hon. Members who were not called when the Prime Minister last returned from a summit—that at Houston on 12 July. I shall keep today's list equally carefully.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not a point of frustration, but I fear that it may be.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we spent five and a half hours on dogs, but now an hour and twenty minutes seems to be enough to spend on the most important thing that is likely to happen to this


country in this generation. Why can we not have a proper sense of balance? Why have you cut short this important issue, when dogs were worth five hours?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I sensed, that was really a point of frustration. I am sorry, but I have to keep a proper balance——

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to keep a balance of the business before the House. The Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box for an hour and a half, which is longer than I would allow for most statements——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I shall bear him in mind in the future.

BILL PRESENTED

ESTABLISHED CHURCH

Mr. Michael Latham presented a Bill to abolish the General Synod of the Church of England, on a date to be appointed; to provide for the creation of a Church of England Assembly, consisting of a House of all Diocesan, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops, and a joint House of Clergy and Laity, to be directly elected by all clergy and lay persons on parochial electoral rolls; to empower the Assembly to decide on all appropriate matters, except those within the responsibilities of the Church Commissioners, without further reference to Parliament; to provide for the election of new Bishops by members of the House of Bishops, saving the right of final approval of the chosen candidate by the Crown; to abolish the Ecclesiastical Committee; to abolish the automatic places of Bishops in the House of Lords; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 1 November and to be printed. [Bill 209.]

Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is my understanding correct that you have laid some stress on hon. Members being called on subjects in

which they have some specialist interest? Is there any point in me being a vice-chairman of the European Affairs Committee when I am never called to ask a question at times such as this? Do you intend to disfranchise me or——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am not having that. I shall send him his computer printout.

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice that I would raise again today a point that I raised yesterday about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). I note that she was in her place until I rose, but that she has now left the Chamber. I have also given the hon. Lady notice that I would raise this matter. Now that you have Hansard in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and can read what it says, you will note that on several occasions—in fact, on no fewer than 11—I clearly asked the hon. Member for Ladywood to withdraw the allegations that she had made against my hon. Friends.
When I raised that later, after you had had the opportunity to read part of Hansard—although not the part to which you took exception—no opportunity was afforded to the hon. Lady finally, on a 12th occasion to note what she had said and realise the offence in the remark that she had made. We have just talked for two hours about the sovereignty of the House. If it means anything, it should also mean the dignity of the Chair and respect for it. For that reason, I ask you to instruct the hon. Lady to return to the House and apologise in accordance with your wishes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yesterday's proceedings brought no credit upon the House or upon the hon. Lady. I received the extract from Hansard containing the allegation made against the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). Once the matter had been resolved—in the end it was resolved almost as a matter of farce—I took the view that that was the time to leave it where it was. I have no authority to deal with it again today.

Labelling (Environmental Effects and Safety)

5 pm

Mr. Richard Page: To move to more tranquil waters, I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for products other than food and drink to carry information about environmental effects and safety; and for connected purposes.
In the normal course of events, when a consumer wishes to make a purchase, I am content to let quality, price and delivery jostle together in the decision with a little touch of caveat emptor thrown in for good measure. However, with the advance of science today and the spread of products, unless one has a chemical degree and a knowledge of the effect of chemicals on the environment, the present labelling and ingredient labelling requirements are worse than useless. That is, of course, assuming that one can read the label in the first place. More often than not, the purchase of such products is made on environmental grounds on the basis of the information on the can or the label.
You will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not brought a series of samples into the Chamber today. Cans often carry bucolic scenes. There may be birds, bees and butterflies all twittering around on the can, yet inside there will be a chlorofluorocarbon propellant. Courtesy of the Consumers Association, I have information that other claims are put on the side of containers, some of which are completely meaningless. Such claims include, "Product contains no phosphates or nitrates of ammonia", when one cannot buy any brand of that product which contains those ingredients. The case continues in that way.
My Bill for non-food products will help to give the consumer more relevant information when making an informed choice about the purchase of non-food products, particularly with regard to their effect on the environment. The Bill does not tread new ground. I am not breaking forth into the wilderness. The west Germans have had their "Blue Angel" scheme for several years, since 1978. Later, the Canadians introduced their scheme. The logo consists of three doves, intertwined—surprise, surprise—with a maple leaf. The Canadians are promoting the scheme as part of their "Buy clean" campaign. The Japanese have an eco-mark to promote the same, based on a cradle-to-the-grave assessment.
In moving my Bill, I would be wrong to give the impression that the Government have been sitting on their hands and that all the other countries have done the necessary work. My researchers have discovered that a senior official at the Department of Trade and Industry—I shall spare his blushes by not mentioning his name—has been seconded to the Commission to work out a scheme within Europe.
A labelling scheme such as I envisage would be operated through public service agencies at arm's length and would operate more through regulation than legislation. Of course, it would need initial pump-priming but in time the fees that would be generated should make it self-financing. The cachet of having the label put on the product would be a powerful selling aid in this country, which at long last is becoming environmentally conscious.
I hope that what I suggest will be accepted not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Community. The Commission hopes to make a presentation to the Council of Ministers later this year. The purpose of the Bill—if it is accepted—is clear. If the EC does not come up with a scheme, the United Kingdom, with its growing commitment to the environment, will put one in place. The financial powers are there to do so, provided that the Environmental Protection Bill completes its passage through the House in the next couple of days.
The scheme must be cradle-to-the-grave. It would be stupid to label a product environmentally friendly and benign, only to discover that the process of its manufacture pollutes. Items would fall into several product sectors. Within those sectors, the merits of each item would be assessed. Those which are judged to reach the standard would be given the qualifying mark. It would be a simple, positive, guide to the purchaser on which products were least harmful to the environment. I envisage that there would be a moving standard within each sector—a constant striving for better quality in existing products and also an encouragement to produce replacements. The product which bears the mark of approval today may well fail to obtain it tomorrow.
As the scheme developed, I hope that next to whatever the mark will be there would be a grading system. A number would indicate the absolute effect that the product has on the environment. In that way, the purchaser would have more than merely a comparison within a sector in making a decision.
A scheme could become a positive sales aid to British manufacturing. For some time, I have been worried about foreign competition. The foreign product imported into our country may not necessarily be produced with the same care and attention to health and safety and pollution regulations which our manufacturers must employ.
In my Bill, I do not attempt to address what the mark will be. I shall leave it to some advertising agency or marketing organisation to come up with some fancy logo. However, I must confess that the capital letter E, standing for ecology, environment and perhaps Europe, has some appeal.
The chances of a 10-minute Bill reaching the statute book are somewhat similar to the survival chances of a snowball in the Sahara. However, I hope that, just as there are nutritional standards and sell-by dates on food, the House will approve the principle of environmental labelling for non-food products. The measure will build on the growing public awareness of the fragile nature of the environment and the need for its protection, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Page, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Graham Bright, Mr. Roger King and Mr. Alistair Burt.

LABELLING (ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND SAFETY)

Mr. Richard Page accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for products other than food and drink to carry information about environmental effects and safety; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

Orders of the Day — Environmental Protection Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 95

FEES AND CHARGES UNDER 1960 ACT

Lords amendment: No. 212, in page 102, line 43, leave out ("sections") and insert ("section").

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 212, 216, 218, 345 to 347 and 429.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments. The amendments deal with technical points.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 213, in page 103, line 5, leave out ("for varying") and insert
("in respect of the variation or)

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 213 to 215, 217, and 304; Lords amendment No. 340 and the amendment thereto; 341 to 344.

Mr. Trippier: Her Majesty's Opposition may wish to speak to their amendment to Lords amendment No. 340 before I say anything.

Ms. Joan Walley: The Opposition do wish to speak to their amendment, which is being discussed at this late stage in the proceedings because the Government have not fulfilled promises made during the earlier stages of the Bill.
The problem dealt with by the amendment arises out of the persistence shown by Dudley metropolitan council in its long-standing attempts to close loopholes in legislation. The council, quite simply, wanted a say in the procedures by which a licence was granted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, to Waste Incineration Services Ltd. This authorised the Pear Tree lane site to be used for the purposes of disposing of solid and liquid organic radioactive waste. I have visited the site, with Councillor Sparks, and have met local residents who have long campaigned about their concerns over waste disposal at the Pear Tree lane and other sites. I have met campaigners from all over the west midlands who are concerned about the way in which radioactive and other toxic wastes are disposed of.
In this case, Dudley metropolitan council was right to have expected to have at least been consulted about the granting of the licence for disposal of radioactive waste under section 6. That is in line with our views on the importance of freedom of information. The behaviour of the HMIP was also in contradiction of the Government's

professed aim, set out in their White Paper, which refers to the need for the public to receive environmental information.
The first that Dudley's residents knew about the licence authorising the disposal of radioactive waste was when the council received a copy of the licence, which had already been issued. Where was the consultation? When the council rightly took this matter through the courts, it was rewarded by the courts finding in its favour. The Secretary of State was required to consider whether to involve local authorities and to give them a right to a hearing. No wonder that the legal officer considered that the Secretary of State's previous actions had been
high-handed, cavalier and unreasonable.
Ever since, we have pressed the Government to recognise that local authorities have a legitimate right to have their say whenever a licence application of this kind is being considered. In a letter to me, the Under-Secretary said:
It is a matter for local authorities only when the proposed disposal has a significant effect on the locality.
However, he makes no suggestion as to what is significant, and at this eleventh hour in our deliberations on the Bill, the issue has not been resolved. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment: it is plain that the Government do not want a statutory procedure for involving local authorities in these major environmental issues such as disposal of radioactive waste.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 340 makes no suggestion even to any rights to hearings. We are not going that far down the road at this stage. Nor does it advance the position of local authorities, except to complete the limited role that they have already been given by the Government's proposal to notify them of applications in advance. These would then have to be published.
Radioactive licences awarded under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 can be for disposal, accumulation, use or use in connection with radioactive apparatus. Amendment (a), which is concerned with radioactive apparatus, is an example of how the procedure should operate. The Government have provided no clear answer to what is supposed to happen when an authority such as Dudley receives a copy of a licence application. As the Bill stands, despite the assurances given by the Under-Secretary, there is no provision to guide the authority as to the period within which comments should be made, or any sign of what the HMIP might do with any comments it receives.
The amendment is designed to regularise the process, to the benefit both of authorities and of the HMIP. The scheme proposed is that there should be a six-week period within the normal four-month period during which the HMIP considers applications, in which the authority may submit comments to the HMIP, which the inspectorate would then be required to consider. This is a light requirement on the HMIP, but it would at least ensure that the comments made by authorities were not simply ignored, as happened in the case of Dudley council. The purpose is to prevent uncertainty about applications from dragging on for any long period, and equally to protect the HMIP from comments received from authorities late in the process, which may cut across the process of determination, which by then would be further advanced.
5.15 pm
The amendment makes the further proposal that notifications to local authorities under the Bill should include a reminder of the calling in power given to the Secretary of State under paragraph 12 of schedule 5, which inserts a new section 12B into the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Under this power, the Secretary of State may instruct the chief inspector to refer to him any particular application which will then be determinable by him. It is understood that it would be open to local authorities to request the Secretary of State to exercise his power. In practice, this would probably be heeded only in a case where a decision reached by the inspector appeared to have ignored a significant matter drawn to his attention by the local authority. Again, I refer the Under-Secretary to the use of the word "significant" in his letter to me.
Nothing in the amendment would constrain the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether to call an application in, but it would serve as a limited form of appeal against decisions to grant applications in certain narrow instances. It would be helpful to have on the record an assurance that it will be open to authorities in specific instances to petition the Secretary of State in this way. If that assurance can be given, and if we can have some guidance as to the way in which officials will deal with this scheme, the residents of Dudley and their councillors will have the satisfaction of knowing that they closed a loophole in legislation, and that they have done all that they properly can to bring the attention of the Government to the wider implications of the way in which waste disposal licences involving radioactive substances are dealt with.

Mr. Trippier: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Lady by making clear what the situation will be when the Bill as it stands—that is, without the amendment—becomes an Act of Parliament. I am concerned about what she said about Dudley metropolitan council. I would not profess to be as much of an expert as she is, but I will look at this one again. Considerable influence has been directed at the Government to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again. Even if I were to take verbatim what has been said by the hon. Lady, the amendment is in any case defective—although I hope that she will forgive me for saying so—because it refers to the procedures that should be applied to applications to use mobile apparatus, but that need not concern us. The principle that the hon. Lady is making is accepted in general terms.
Local authorities will be sent copies of all applications for registration and authorisation once they have been received by the chief inspector. They will then have an opportunity to comment at an early stage in every case. At present, local authorities see applications only if they are involved in a formal confrontation process. Local authorities will be sent a greater amount of information. In addition to copies of applications, they are to be sent copies of all certificates. At present, certificates of registration for mobile radioactive apparatus are not required to be sent. They will be sent copies of certificates for enforcement, copies of prohibition notices, records of convictions and any other documents that the Secretary of State may direct the chief inspector to send.
Local authorities will have a role to play in making this information available, as the public will be able to inspect those documents at their offices. That, as the hon. Lady knows full well, is consistent with our approach, which she

has supported. I welcome the increased public access to environmental information. Authorities are to be entitled to charge a reasonable fee for the provision of photocopies of documents that will be open to public inspection.
There may be a minor difference of opinion between us on the great majority of cases in which radioactive materials need to be registered to be kept and used. Certainly, in the case of mobile apparatus, local authorities will have no executive or regulatory function. I entirely accept that the hon. Lady may not necessarily be asking for that, but it is a statement of fact.
As a result, authorities will also lack the highly specialist expertise that will be necessary to enable them to comment on these matters in an informed and detailed way. For that reason, the control of radioactive substances has always, under successive Governments, been under central Government control—at present through Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in England and Wales and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate in Scotland.
As I have said, the amendment is inappropriate, and I ask the House to reject it.

Ms. Walley: Given what the Minister has just said, may I ask him whether he is prepared to discuss further with his officials and with officers of the metropolitan council of Dudley ways of dealing with some of the issues that have been raised—including the timetable under which HMIP would give information to the local authority concerned? We do not have a final way of dealing with this, but we accept that, if there are further consultations of that sort, that will at least benefit HMIP and enable the problems that have been highlighted by the Dudley case to be of wider benefit in tightening up legislation on radioactive waste and its disposal.

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause

PUBLIC REGISTERS OF INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 250, after Clause 115, insert the following new Clause—

Publicity

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a register ("the register") containing prescribed particulars of or relating to

(a) notices given or other information furnished under section 102 above;
(b) directions given under section 102(8) above;
(c) prohibition notices;
(d) applications for consents (and any further information furnished in connection with them) and any advice given by the committee appointed under section (advisory committee for purposes of Part VI) below in relation to such applications;
(e) consents granted by the Secretary of State and any information furnished to him in pursuance of consent conditions;
(f) any other information obtained or furnished under any provision of this Part;
(g) convictions for such offences under section 112 above as may be prescribed;
(h) such other matters relating to this Part as may be prescribed;
but that duty is subject to section (exclusion from register of certain information) below.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—


(a) to secure that the register is open to inspection by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours; and
(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(3) The register may be kept in any form.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the keeping of the register; and in this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier]

Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in paragraph 1(d), after "below", to insert "or any other committee".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (b) to the Lords amendment; and Lords amendment No. 251 and amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Morley: The issue of genetically modified organisms has not received the attention that it deserves, although it has far-ranging consequences. I hope that new developments in this country will be beneficial, and the research has a potential for good for our food and agriculture industries. However, there is no doubt that we need a tight framework to ensure that such research—especially that involving the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment—is carried out in a way that is tightly controlled and open to public scrutiny.
I am grateful for the concessions accepted in the Lords amendments. I am aware that the Government appreciate the importance of these issues and that they have gone a long way towards dealing with some of the worries expressed by the Opposition and other organisations.
We welcome the significant changes in Lords amendment No. 250, particularly the setting up of a register of information for the regulatory procedure. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will have its advice published in the register for the public to see, but other committees, particularly the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification, do not seem to be empowered in the new clause to have their recommendations and advice published for the public to see. I imagine that there may be an amalgamation of advice from both committees and from the Health and Safety Executive, so it would make sense if the Government accepted our amendment to allow other relevant committees to have their advice published for the public to see.
As for amendment (b), although we accept that applications for consent will be registered, the Lords amendment does not seem to provide for information on future revocations or variations of consent to be registered. I know that it was argued in the Lords that there are registers under subsection (1)(c) and (d), but it does not seem clear whether that will be allowed under the Lords amendment, even though I appreciate that the Secretary of State has powers under subsection (1)(h) to prescribe other matters, and that he can use those powers to clarify the situation, whether or not the information is included in the amendment.
We need to examine commercial confidentiality. I realise that, when research involving the release of genetically modified organisms is being carried out, people may for various reasons want to sabotage the experiments

by undermining them commercially; so many people would accept that it is reasonable to keep secret the details of a site where the experiments had been carried out. But it is not justifiable to keep secret details about the company or institution carrying out the experiments. Such information must be available to the public. General information about the operation should also be made public, so that people can see what is going on.
I know that there are difficulties in keeping a site where genetically modified organism experiments are taking place secret, but it is not unreasonable to expect general information about such experiments to be provided. I see no reason why the names of the companies and institutions concerned should not be provided for people who have an interest in these matters—that is merely part of the accountability which I am sure the Government would accept is essential for sensitive experiments of this nature.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is a legal minefield. Because of time constraints, I will ask the Minister only one question. Is there any working party or group in the Department of the Environment or in any of the other Ministries—such as the Department of Trade and Industry—that may be as directly or more directly involved in the thorny, difficult and intractable question of the patenting of animals? It raises many difficult issues of patent law, and it is crucial that someone should sort them out.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I associate myself with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and agree that genetically modified organisms have considerable potential for benefiting mankind, but that they must be carefully controlled and managed. Like all scientific advances, they offer the potential for harm as well as good.
The Lords amendments give statutory backing to our previously declared policy on public access to information about part VI matters, and establish a public register of information. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 250 would require details of advice given to the Secretary of State for the Environment by "any other committee" to be recorded in the register. That is not necessary, because information on the register will relate solely to part VI, and only the committee established by virtue of amendment No. 253, which we have yet to consider, will be relevant to consideration of the matters in question.
In practice, that committee will be the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the composition and terms of reference of which we announced last April. There are others concerned with genetically modified organisms, such as the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee but they are not directly concerned with environmental safety, so their advice would not be relevant to the matters to which the part VI register relates.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the patenting of animals. I confirm that colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry are negotiating on an EC directive covering precisely that issue, which I hope reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morley: Does not the Minister agree that in terms of the specialised subject of release, there would be a purpose to seeking the advice of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No. A matter concerning environmental safety will fall to be considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe spoke also to amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 250, which would require details of revocations and variations of consents, and so on, to be included in the register. Again, I assure him that that is unnecessary. Lords amendment No. 250, subsection (1) requires the register to include particulars of, or relating to, a number of notices—including, in paragraph (d), applications for consents. It is clear that revocations and variations of such consents are included, and that effect is given to amendment (b) by the existing subsection (1).
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 251 would modify the Secretary of State's ability to exclude information from the register, on the ground that its exclusion might result in damage to the environment. All member states of the Community agree in principle that there must be such a provision, and a similar measure exists in the directive on access to information on the environment adopted in June. I assure the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe that the ability to exclude information is a reserve power that will be used only with the greatest discretion.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe suggested that experiments and tests might be sabotaged if it were known that releases were taking place in a certain way, at a particular location. I can give an example to illustrate his point. The release of a genetically modified plant might be allowed only under specified conditions that might include—I cite a particular instance from the continent—the requirement that the plants are covered with bags to prevent dissemination of the seeds and their uncontrolled dispersal into the environment. Were the plot to be sabotaged, dispersal could occur, thereby damaging the environment, which would be the exact opposite of the intention of the conditions under which the experiment was allowed to proceed.
In such cases, disclosure of too much information could lead indirectly to environmental damage. On those grounds, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, choose not to press the amendment.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, but I must press him on the role of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. While it could be argued that its terms of reference cover releases of genetic material into the environment, the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee is meant to consider the environmental consequences of escape from containment of genetically modified material. Is not there a case for the ACGM giving advice on containment experimentations, which ought to be recorded for public scrutiny?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If such a matter for concern came before the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee, it would properly refer it to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. In those circumstances, the matter would be discussed, and advice issued. Therefore, I insist that the wording that

amendment (a) seeks to introduce is unnecessary. The committee we are to establish will be adequate for the task, in that it will consider all matters relating to environmental safety.

Mr. Morley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

New Clause

ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PURPOSES OF PART VI

Lords amendment: No. 253, before clause 116 insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to provide him with advice—
(a) on the exercise of his powers under sections 105, 106 and 107 above;
(b) on the exercise of any powers under this Part to make regulations;
and on such other matters concerning his functions under this Part as he may from time to time direct.

(2) The chairman and other members of the committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.

(3) The Secretary of State shall pay to the members of the committee such remuneration (if any) and such allowances as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. Morley: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 7, leave out from 'concerning' to end of line 8 and insert
'the operation of this part as it may consider desirable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that amendment No. 253 involves privilege.

Mr. Morley: I emphasise again that we welcome the concessions that the Government have made by establishing the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which was announced last April. This amendment seeks clarification on the role of that committee. Will the Minister confirm that the advisory committee will have a wide-ranging area of advice as its remit—for example, what it can do and where it can intervene? We believe that our amendment gives the committee greater freedom to operate within its remit.
Will the Minister confirm that the terms of reference agreed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment at its first meeting on 3 July will he allowed? The terms of reference were to advise the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, the Secretaries of State, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other bodies as appropriate on all aspects of human and environmental health and safety, on the introduction into the United Kingdom environment of genetically modified and other novel organisms and in particular to advise on proposals for the specific introduction of research needs and on appropriate regulations and written guidance.
Certainly we should have no quibble with those terms of reference, but the new clause seems more restrictive than the words used in the committee's terms of reference, which refer to all aspects of human and environmental


health and safety. Also, the new clause is not clear about the advice, reference needs and written guidance that the committee refers to.
The Royal Commission on environmental pollution has suggested that the advisory committee should advise on a whole series of headings, such as the scope for categorising releases, the need for research, especially on releases, the undertaking of a review of releases that have been carried out, as well as liaison with overseas organisations. It is also possible that the committee may advise on any need for changes in the legislative procedure in future.
I should also like an assurance that the committee will have the power to produce an annual report, which will include developments that it has been involved with and lessons to be learnt from them.
Will the Minister also assure me that the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will have a broad-based representation? I accept that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has such a broad base and I congratulate the Minister as it covers a wide range of interested parties, not only on the technical and scientific side but on the wider environment side. I should appreciate assurances that the Genetically Modified Organisms Release Advisory Committee will also have that broad base.
There is concern about the ethical implications of such research. While I believe that genetically modified organisms—plants and animals—have great potential and could have great advantages, there are a whole series of ethical implications. I understand that a commitment was given to the Lords that the Government would consider such implications, and would make a statement in due course. Can the Minister inform the House at which point in the next Session of Parliament a statement can be expected and what form it will take?

Mr. Trippier: I respect the point that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made about the ethical considerations that must be addressed. He will remember that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) raised that matter in Committee, and that several members of the Committee commented upon it. I welcome what he said, and that matter will certainly be addressed.
There will be an annual report, and I am glad to be able to give the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe that assurance. However, he must remember his words only five minutes ago, when he was talking about accountability. I agreed with him at the time. With such a complicated and technically obtuse subject as genetically modified organisms, eventually it must be the Secretary of State's responsibility to decide what happens to advice given by the advisory committee, for reasons that I thought we had agreed in the Standing Committee—I shall quickly reiterate them. The Secretary of State for the Environment, who is answerable to the House and ultimately to the country, must be the person who is responsible in law for the committee and for the advice that it gives.
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the statement that I issued in April on the terms and conditions of the advisory committee still stands. I confirm that membership of that committee, which I have already announced, is

wide-ranging, and draws from people with incredible expertise in this complicated area. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of meeting all of them. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, but I ask him seriously to consider withdrawing the amendment because as it stands, it gives the power to the committee to lake powers unto itself with regard to part V of the Bill and, in my wildest dreams, I cannot believe that that is what he intended. I believe that he would wish the Secretary of State of the day, in whichever Government, to have that responsibility. If not, I do not know how on earth he can square it with the comments that he made five minutes ago.

Mr. Morley: I respect the Minister's statements. I also take as a compliment the fact that he said that there may well be another Secretary of State. Perhaps the Opposition have not peaked quite as early as the Minister said we had at the weekend. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Clause 118

CREATION AND CONSTITUTION OF NEW COUNCILS

Lords amendment: No. 254, in page 123, line 31, at end insert—

("(3A) The Councils shall establish a committee to be called the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (in this Part referred to as "the joint committee)".")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 254; Lords amendments Nos. 255 to 258, 264, 268 to 270; Lords amendment No. 271 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 272, 274 to 280; Lords amendment No. 353 and amendment (a) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 382, 383, 402, 403; Lords amendment No. 404 and Government amendment (a) thereto and 405.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, after 'shall' insert
'within one month of the date of the Order coming into effect on or after 1st April 1992 made by the Secretary of State under Section 147(3) below in respect of this section'.

Mr. Gould: It is 15 months or thereabouts since the decision to dismember the Nature Conservancy Council was taken or announced. Few would defend the way in which the matter was handled. Baroness Blatch virtually conceded as much in another place. It was clearly done without consultation, it was a hole-in-the-corner exercise and was a virtual bombshell, which exploded to the great consternation of the NCC, its staff and the entire conservation world.
I suppose that one could say that the decision was another of those poisoned chalices that the current Secretary of State's predecessor bequeathed to him. The list extends from opposition to dog registration, to the poll tax, to dismemberment of the NCC. I find it surprising that the Secretary of State somehow manages to convey that he has no sympathy with so much that is central to the


Department's policy, including those issues, as well as targets on carbon dioxide emissions. Nor can it be said that the passage of 15 months has done much to improve the welcome that those proposals have received.
The Government's decision is still condemned by the overwhelming majority of conservation organisations. I shall select one example—not entirely at random—but simply because it is a representative voice of the conservation world. In a briefing issued this morning, the Council for the Protection of Rural England said that it
remains of the opinion that these proposals for reform have been mismanaged from start to finish.
It reiterated its view that
the best way forward would have been for Part VII to have been deleted from the Bill and reorganisation addressed as a central part of the White Paper".
We understand that, unfortunately, that option is no longer open to us. We regret that, but it is worth noting that that remains the view of the CPRE, and of so many of the other major conservation organisations.
The concern expressed by the staff of the Nature Conservancy Council has not diminished during those 15 months. If anything, it has increased. Earlier this year a ballot of NCC staff revealed that only one person supported the Government's proposals for every 10 people who were opposed to them. In a recent ballot this month we discovered that that ratio has moved substantially against the Government. It is now 17:1.
That is not because, as Ministers have on occasion offensively suggested, the staff have voted solely in their self-interest. As the staff pointed out, they are well acquainted with the fact, and welcome it, that their jobs are not threatened. No job is threatened and few members of the staff will have to move. Furthermore, it is expected that the number of jobs will increase. When, however, they were asked whether they believed that the proposals would benefit nature conservation, only 39 of the 1,332 staff employed by the Nature Conservancy Council could bring themselves to say yes. The Government ought to accept that that was a principled statement by the staff, entirely divorced from their own self-interest, as to how they see nature conservancy being served by the Government's policies.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend allow me to give him the figures for Scotland? The Scots were supposed to be in favour of this nonsense. The fact is that 21 people were in favour of it, whereas 112 were against it. From my personal knowledge I know that the 112 include many of those who care most and know most. There were 26 "don't knows". Those are the Scottish figures.

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has removed a sedulously fostered myth. While the ratio of opposition is not quite so high in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, it is still—at 5:1—absolutely overwhelming.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is strange to extrapolate from the figures produced by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the belief that the Scots are enthusiastic about the proposition that the hon. Gentleman advocates. No part of the country has been rendered more desolate than Caithness and Sutherland by the malign influence of the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe, therefore, that the

Government have got this absolutely right and that the Scots are behind them. I hope that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will make it absolutely clear from the Opposition Front Bench that if the Labour party wins the next election it will not seek to reverse the Government's sensible decision.

Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman's somewhat intemperate attitude and language are pointed up by his total failure to understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that my hon. Friend advanced evidence in support of some proposition. It is the Government who have advanced a proposition. My hon. Friend advanced evidence to show to what extent that proposition is opposed by those who are most directly and expertly informed about the matter.
Far from the Labour party believing that the Government have got it right, I want to say straight away that although we well understand the need to devolve and decentralise many of the Nature Conservancy Council's functions, which the NCC also recognises, we have also made it clear that it is neither a necessary nor an acceptable part of that exercise to do unnecessary and violent damage to the cause of nature conservation throughout the country.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Since the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) may unwittingly be interpreted as having criticised the work of the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland, may I point out that I visited his constituency earlier this year and discussed with one of his constituents the splendid work that the NCC has carried out on a friend's farm in the Caithness area? Its record of service in protecting that farm, in co-operation with a highly responsible farmer, does not suggest that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms should be quite so bitter as they may appear in the Official Report.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend may have been misled into thinking that the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the NCC was unwitting. I understand that, because so often what the hon. Gentleman says does sound unwitting. On this occasion, however, I feel that one has to concede that it was witting, whatever that may mean.
The Government do not carry public opinion with them because they have failed to satisfy the concern about the gap that has been left by the demise of the Nature Conservancy Council, a point that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland obtusely refuses to acknowledge. We have repeatedly made it clear that we accept the case for decentralisation, but we do not accept that it is right to carve that great hole in the nature conservation effort throughout the United Kingdom.
It is also clear that many functions of both a national and an international character can be carried out only by a national body. There is no dispute between the Government and ourselves on the point. The Government recognise it. Why else would they have recognised the need to create, by amendments even at this late stage and by means, I imagine, of more provisions still to come, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee? Why else would they have gone to such great lengths to create that body if if were not designed to fulfil those national and international functions that are left unfulfilled after the demise of the NCC?
Although there will be a dispute, in which I intend to participate, about the precise functions of the JNCC and its staffing, relations with other bodies, funding and location, it is impossible to say—except as between the rest of the House and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland—that there is any dispute about the fact that there is a gap to be filled. The JNCC is the Government's response to the need to fill that gap. Having acknowledged that such a gap must be filled, the Government have failed to use the time at their disposal to prepare the JNNC properly for its new responsibilities. It is that which is now giving cause for concern.
The question is no longer—-perhaps regrettably from our viewpoint—whether the Government were right or wrong in principle. The question now is whether they were competent in practice in preparing that body for its new role. It is in that area that the real concerns persist. It is for that precise reason that there was such uproar in another place when Lady Blatch mishandled—one has to say, with all kindness—the explanation to their Lordships of the Government's proposal. It is because those concerns persist that we have tabled the amendment and wish to press it.
The competence of the new body is a cause for concern. It was that question that caused such embarrassment to the Minister of State's junior ministerial colleague. I cannot recall any other Committee in which a Minister has wriggled for so long on a hook of his own creation and found it so difficult to get off it. Fair-minded Members on both sides of the House who sat on the Committee will recognise that that is a fair description of what happened.
If we take the nub of the matter—who decides what is and what is not a Great Britain responsibility—the problem is that the JNCC does not have the power to resolve it. That is one reason why very great and fundamental concerns persist about the JNCC's role. I do not want to be too critical of Professor Holliday, but the confusion was not helped by an exchange that took place at a meeting on 26 September.
I have a verbatim record of what was said. It was put to him in the following terms:
It doesn't seem very likely to me in view of this that the Committee"—
that is, the JNCC—
is going to survive for very long at all. It will simply wither away to a core which will consist of international matters because everything else in say five years will be drawn back by the country agencies.
That is a reference to this precise jurisdictional point. Professor Holliday responded to the suggestion that the JNCC might wither away by saying:
Yes. Well, you may be right. I hope you're not.
We all know the difficulty of responding to points such as that in a meeting and I should not wish to hold Professor Holliday to that response. It did not help. It left the well-founded worry about the control of the JNCC over its own functions and the apparent endorsement—/ put it no higher than that—of the suggestion that it might wither away because the country bodies would draw back from it the powers claimed. That apparent endorsement was unhelpful to the concerns expressed on that point.

Mr. Trippier: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech closely and I do not think that he will have any difficulty in answering the question that I wish to put to him. It is an extension of what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

The House must understand what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is saying. Is he saying that, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government taking power, the JNCC would become a quango and have authoritative power, or would he leave it with the scientific responsibility that is proposed in the United Kingdom or what? I think that that requires only a couple of sentences.

6 pm

Mr. Gould: Let me preface what I say by acknowledging the Minister's recognition of the possibility of a Labour Government. That is a welcome advance.
The choice offered by the Minister is misleading and that is why the Government have got into trouble. Before the JNCC can exercise what the Minister described as its "scientific responsibility", it has to know over what areas and over what issues it has the power to exercise those functions. That is where the problem arises It has no power to make that decision. If for any reason the country bodies decide that a particular issue, however much it may seem common sense, is not a Great Britain issue, the JNCC is left powerless.

Mr. Dalyell: Professor Holliday has been a friend of mine ever since his Stirling days. He is an extremely candid, frank and realistic man. He has stated the facts. I understand that the Government have not given him a chief officer in the JNCC. Heaven knows how it expects to be ready by April.

Mr. Gould: As always, the problem is that points come thick and fast. My hon. Friend is right on all that he said. In the exchange from which I quoted, Professor Holliday described what had been perpetrated as a "camel", and one understands what he meant by that analogy.
In answer to the Minister's question, there should be rules to resolve this point. My view is that the JNCC should be able to decide what is and what is not a Great Britain issue. It is plainly unsatisfactory to leave the JNCC in its present circumstances without any such power and with the possibility always that its budget and the definitions of what it can do are not within its control and can be retrieved. That is why Professor Holliday was tempted, if I may put it that way, to make the concession that he did in the passage that I have just read out.
The next concern is the dispute that has arisen about whether the JNCC should also be able to deal with countryside matters. The answer seems to be that it should not. However, the waters have been muddied by the Government's equivocation in their White Paper and on other occasions over the possible need for further legislation—I cannot imagine why we should have to wait for further legislation—to amalgamate the functions of the JNCC and the Countryside Commission in England. If it is a good idea—apparently it has been decided that it is in Scotland and Wales—why not in England? Why cannot the Government make up their mind? It is hard to follow the Government's logic.
There are also the more fundamental disputes about the costs of reorganisation and the increase in the budget that will be needed to fund adequately the new arrangements, bearing it in mind that the JNCC has no control over its budget. Sir William Wilkinson, the chairman of the NCC, has been repeatedly—and I believe unfairly—criticisecl by Ministers for claims that he has made about the costs involved. It is now clear that Sir William Wilkinson was


right. He could not defend himself because he was relying on the Inbucon report, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, to which he had access. He knew that the figures that he was quoting were offered and confirmed by that report. Because at that time Ministers had decided that the report was not available for publication, Sir William Wilkinson was left defenceless against the charge made by Ministers that he was inventing the figures.

Mr. Maclennan: Sir William Wilkinson has admitted to me and stated publicly that he exaggerated the figures by a factor of three. He spoke about £30 million when the reality of the Government's proposals was £10 million.

Mr. Gould: I do not know whether it is fair to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has read the Inbucon report. Before he again expresses himself so intemperately, particularly against somebody who is not here to defend himself, he should read that report. He will see why Sir William Wilkinson used the figure of £30 million. It is not his figure, but is contained in the Inbucon report. We now have the advantage of knowing what is in the report. In an amazing volte face in another place, Baroness Blatch suddenly announced that it was the Department's view that the report was now the property of the NCC and that it was up the NCC to decide whether to publish it. It has now done so. Therefore, for the first time, we and everybody else are able to decide whether Sir William Wilkinson was justified in basing his arguments on those figures. There they are in the report.
Because it became clear that the report would be published, the Government have now confirmed that the direct administrative costs of the reorganisation that they have proposed will be £9·18 million and that an additional 254 staff will be required. I observe—as has been observed in another place and on other occasions—that if the Labour party had been in Government and had brought forward proposals costing that amount and requiring such a large number of additional staff for no advantage but purely as an administrative rearrangement, we should have been criticised and there would have been a tremendous outcry.

Mr. Trippier: I am trying desperately to be fair and patient with the hon. Gentleman. Surely he is not asking the House to stretch its credulity to such an extent as to believe that there will be no advantage when so many hon. Members, including some of his hon. Friends, have acknowledged that the purpose of the Government's legislation is to bring about nature conservation and make it more effective at community level.

Mr. Gould: No doubt the Minister has been saying that for the past 15 months. I simply refer him to the point that I made earlier, which is that he has failed to convince anyone of any reputation in the conservation world. I thought that I was being kind to him when I said that there was no obvious advantage to be gained from the expenditure. The truth is, as everybody interested in nature conservation agrees, that there is considerable disadvantage.
It is clear from perusal of the Inbucon report why Sir William Wilkinson constantly referred to a figure of £10

million as the administrative cost and a total cost of between £20 million and £30 million. The Inbucon report says that £20 million is
the minimum necessary to ensure that the new agencies can carry out their statutory obligations.
It goes on to say that £30 million is required to deliver the enhanced conservation believed essential to tackle issues in the decade to come.
I have already had a hasty and ill-thought-out reply from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but I want to know from the Minister whether he accepts the assessments and the figures produced by the Inbucon report. We need to know whether, if they are accepted, the Government now commit themselves to funding those increased sums.
The most urgent concern is about the preparedness of the new agencies. That is the issue to which our amendment is directed. We are concerned particularly about staffing. The latest figures on vacancies are extremely worrying. I have been provided with the most up-to-date table. The figures show, for example, that the percentage of posts filled at the headquarters of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland is only 44 per cent.—56 per cent. vacancies. We have heard that only 46 per cent. of posts at the headquarters of the Countryside Council for Wales have been filled—54 per cent. vacancies. Only at the Nature Conservancy Council headquarters in England is the percentage of posts filled more than 70 per cent. That is desperate. We simply cannot expect those bodies to be ready by 1 April when they are still suffering such immense staff shortages.
Naturally, we should like to press the Government to give us an assurance that those vacancies will be filled. I fear that that is now a forlorn hope; that there is no prospect of filling all those vacancies in time for 2 April 1991. Let us again be kind to the Minister: can he give an assurance that in every case where the target is not met, at least 70 per cent.—that is a pretty limited target—of vacancies will have been filled by 2 April 1991? If he cannot give that assurance—I shall listen carefully to his reply to see whether he can—how does he expect the new agencies to operate?
Is it not the case that total confusion reigns in the preparations that have been made; that the Countryside Council for Wales is so short staffed that its finances will continue to be run from Peterborough for at least the first year; that the two Scottish bodies, the NCC and the Countryside Commission, will remain in their separate offices in Edinburgh and Perth for at least the foreseeable future; that Mr. Ian Mercer has still not accepted the job of chief executive of the Countryside Commission of Wales, although that offer was made some months ago; and that no decision has been taken on where the JNCC will be located and no chief officer has yet been appointed?
The charge is not so much that the Government have got it wrong—that they have damaged nature conservation unnecessarily—but that they cannot even retrieve the position that they have created because of hopeless confusion and unpreparedness. As Melanie Griffiths said in The Guardian recently,
Malice has now been superseded by incompetence.
In protest against that incompetence and the cavalier disregard of nature conservation, we shall press our amendment.

Sir Hector Monro: It is astonishing to listen to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) trying to


find a difficulty for every solution and moaning and carping about the excellent progress that has been made towards the implementation of the Bill on 1 April 1991.
I was at an NCC meeting this morning, where there was no panic or long drawn faces that the target that has been set for Scotland and Wales cannot be achieved. Nobody appreciates more than the council that its staff must be helped into the right places at the right time. The vast majority of the staff at Peterborough and at the NCC in England will be staying in post. Some are volunteering to go to Wales, some are volunteering to go to Scotland, some are volunteering to return to another civil service post and others are taking early retirement.
There is not the difficulty with staff that the hon. Gentleman suggested. Until it has resolved who should go to which post, the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave for shortages in Wales and Scotland will be true, but there is no question but that we shall have adequate staff in place in Wales and Scotland by next spring.

Mr. Gould: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If I understand him correctly, he may be taking it on himself to offer an assurance that staff will be available and that the vacancies that I mentioned will be filled. Would he care to put a figure on it, and should we accept his assurance as being as valuable as that of the Government?

Sir Hector Monro: I cannot give an assurance that is more important than the Government's; I am only a member of the council. I said that there is no panic in Peterborough about resolving problems. After all, there is still a considerable number of months to go until 1 April. Much work is being done and, there is confidence that it will be carried out for 1 April.

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman is responsible, possibly more than anybody else, for bringing the tartan curtain down, why did 184 of his staff at Peterborough vote, against him and only three vote for him? How could that be?

Sir Hector Monro: When one has been a member of the council for as long as I have, one realises that there is much advantage in the devolution proposed. For heaven's sake, if I thought that nature conservation in Scotland was 100 per cent., I would not support the Bill, but I do not think it is. There is much to do in Scotland, England and Wales. It is very much better that each country looks after its own responsibility. The hon. Gentleman is flogging a horse that was never even a runner.
Two or three years ago, I thought, "Goodness me, couldn't we look after the problems of Caithness much better from Edinburgh than we do from Peterborough? Would it not be much better if our chief scientist was in Edinburgh instead of Peterborough? Would it not be better if we were able to look after our own affairs?" It is important that nature conservation problems are tackled locally. It is much easier to do that in Scotland if one is based in Edinburgh and has staff in regional offices throughout Scotland.
I accept that that will cost more money, but I want it to cost more money, because that is the only way that we shall achieve better results. The NCC for Scotland must have additional regional offices and sub-offices so that more of its officials are spread across Scotland, and that

can be equated to Wales and England. We are spread far too thinly on the ground; we are losing the community touch, which is so important. Local thought must go into nature conservation.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been so strongly in favour of nature conservation over the years and was very much to the forefront during proceedings on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I cannot understand why he cannot see the advantages of running this operation from Edinburgh or from wherever we decide to run it. I accept the possibility of an alternative location, but Edinburgh is more likely to be the office that will deal with our national heritage.
The hon. Member for Dagenham did not begin to make a case for splitting the NCC again. I accept his comments about our proposal costing money, but it is unreasonable for the Opposition to press the Government, before the Bill is passed, on how much money will be available. Ministers for Scotland, England and Wales have always said that sufficient money will be available to fulfil the responsibilities that we are asking the devolved councils to carry out.
Lords amendment No. 254 establishes the JNCC and states what its responsibilities and composition will be. Over the past six months, we have known that Sir Frederick Holiday would be chairman and we know that Lord Cranbrook, Magnus Magnusson and Mr. Michael Griffiths from Wales will run the respective councils. One cannot accept that those four gentlemen, who are of the highest calibre in conservation in the United Kingdom, would put their names to the whole operation if they did not think that it would be successful.

Mr. Trippier: I am hugely enjoying my hon. Friend's words, and I am grateful for his support for this legislation. I want to continue with his point. Could anyone seriously expect the four individuals whom my hon. Friend has catalogued for the benefit of the House to fail to ensure that the number of staff required were in place at the appropriate moment?

Sir Hector Monro: I should be very surprised if those four men were not determined to have the staff in place. The chief officials, the designated chief officials and the current permanent staff are also determined on that. Everything is working smoothly. Of course, no one says that it will be easy to get the calibre of staff that we require, but there is a determination to achieve that and to have everything running by next summer.
I see no reason why we should fall down on any of our statutory duties, such as the notification and renotification of sites of special scientific interest or the implementation of management agreements. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, the new bodies will be able to keep a closer eye on the problems of the flow country, which he has so rightly highlighted in the House for many years.
We should welcome this group of Lords amendments. I know that we shall keep an eye on the common standards of designation of SSSIs, and it will be the overall duty of the joint committee to keep standards in each country as high as they are at present. All that is good for the establishment of the joint committee, which will have functions in Great Britain and internationally. The Government are right to accept the Lords amendments, and I give them my full support.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I will address my remarks to amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 271, which is also supported by Liberal Democrat Members. The amendment is a probing amendment, as we want the Government to explain their attitude to the dumping of nuclear waste. The amendment would allow the Nature Conservancy Council to make recommendations to local authorities about the effects of the dumping of nuclear waste on nature conservation in their areas. I should like the Government to explain their attitude to the important question of nuclear dumping, and especially its effects on nature conservancy. How will nuclear dumping relate to the work of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or of the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, if the Lords amendment is agreed to? During the passage of the Bill, the Government have said nothing about this important issue.
It seems incredible that a Bill concerned with the environment does not mention nuclear dumping, which is the major issue in Scotland. The Government may have thought that they were in trouble over the poll tax, in view of the reaction of the Scottish people, but I assure them that that will be as nothing compared with the massive outcry and anger throughout Scotland if a decision is taken to carry out nuclear dumping in our country.
What is the relationship between the Nature Conservancy Council and local government? Amendment (b) allows for contact with local government, which means contact with democracy in Scotland, through democratically elected councils which can speak on behalf of local people. In northern Scotland, the councils have already spoken out strongly against nuclear dumping. They have held plebiscites and have taken soundings of opinion.
Local authorities also have responsibility for industry. Nuclear dumping would strongly affect employment and industry, especially tourism, farming and fishing. Surely any nature conservancy body should have something to say on this and should be in contact with local government to describe the problems, difficulties and consequences of plans to dump nuclear waste.
Dumping sites are being proposed for Dounreay, but they could appear elsewhere. The problem affects the whole of Scotland, especially with the transportation of nuclear waste, which will affect land, sea and, possibly, air. Any nature conservancy body worth its salt should be able to be in contact with local authorities, which will be left with many of the practical problems.
It is hard to envisage that any conservation body would have recommended that Nirex be given planning permission to test bore at Dounreay or anywhere else in Scotland. The consequences of waste dumping for nature conservation could be serious, given the danger and problems associated with deep level storage and the transportation of nuclear waste.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest that nuclear waste from Chapelcross near Annan in Scotland should be dumped in England?

Mr. Welsh: If the hon. Gentleman cares to study my party's policy, he will find the answer to that question and to others affecting nuclear dumping. The important point is that any Government worth their salt would ensure that nuclear garbage was not created because it exacerbates the problems. The hon. Gentleman's own party should look carefully at its policies, which would create extra waste to

be disposed of. We have to take care of the problem that has already been created, and my party has answers to that. We are especially concerned not to increase the problem, because one should never accelerate into a position where there could be an accident.
Nuclear waste affects the environment of the whole country due to the transportation of such environmentally dangerous products by land, by sea and, perhaps, by air. I have heard of bad neighbours but, in planning terms, the combination of nuclear waste and environmental protection is ridiculous.
Amendment (b) would offer the opportunity for a dialogue between the new conservancy body and the local authorities. That is especially relevant when one considers the economic impact of nuclear dumping on the economy of the rural areas, whose basic industries of fishing, farming and tourism depend on the public perception of a clean environment. That is very much to the fore in the work of the Nature Conservancy Council.
The new conservation body should have the power to investigate the impact of nuclear dumping on all the possible sites in Scotland. Nirex has 12 sites in reserve, although it has so far declined to disclose them. Wherever the problem occurs, contact should be possible so that the effects are clearly made known to the local authorities. The Nature Conservancy Council cannot ignore the effect of nuclear dumping, although the Bill tries to do so. What is the point of cleaning up the environment in Scotland only to have Scotland turned into the world's nuclear dustbin? That must not happen. We do not need or want this stuff. Scotland must not be treated in this fashion.
Will the Minister tell us what is the role of the Nature Conservancy Council in the nuclear dumping debate? How can it intervene and what is its relationship with the local authorities which are the planning and economic authorities in Scotland? What advice can the council give on these important issues? We have tabled the amendment to elicit comment from the Government about the role and powers of the Nature Conservancy Council when faced with one of the most important environmental issues.

Mr. Trippier: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to sit down without getting it off his chest that he was a strong supporter of part VII of the Bill, notwithstanding his questions, which I hope to address later.

Mr. Welsh: The Minister knows that I favour maximum devolved power to Scotland and that I want to see a vastly increased and better resourced nature conservancy body in Scotland, because the Scottish environment deserves that. The Minister is well aware of that, because I made it clear in Committee.
The amendment has been tabled to enable us to ask the Minister about the relationship between the Nature Conservancy Council and the local authorities on the important question of nuclear dumping. That issue will be very much to the fore in Scottish politics—it will be the hottest issue around. The Scottish people will rise up in anger against any plans for nuclear dumping in our country. If the Government do not know that already, they will certainly find it out. Will the Minister explain the relationship and explain what powers the body will have and what it will do on this, the most important of issues in Scotland?

Mr. Hardy: On Second Reading, I kept my promise to make a reasonably short speech. My speech today will be even shorter. On Second Reading, I had to devote most of the time available to me to the pernicious and continuing problem of toxic waste in my constituency. I do not propose to refer to that matter now, but on that occasion it meant that I could say only one or two words about the future of the Nature Conservancy Council. Had I had the opportunity then, I should have liked to support the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—a relevant aspiration on this occasion—and to ask the House to consider the following proposition. It is only three or four years since the NCC's headquarters in Peterborough were officially opened—it is not as though, before the Government's proposal, the NCC had been languishing in incompetent idleness for decades. The people there, who are dedicated and competent people, had been operating in Peterborough for only a short time.
I had the privilege to speak at the opening ceremony. I recall that the three people on the platform then were the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now Lord Jenkin, Sir William Wilkinson, and myself. I remember vividly that the then Secretary of State made the sort of preposterous claim that some of the Minister's colleagues may shortly be making as we approach the general election—indeed, the Minister may not be able to resist the temptation to make them himself. Lord Jenkin suggested at that gathering that only the Conservative party and the Conservative Government were interested in the environment. He actually claimed that every environmental Bill that had gone through Parliament in the previous 40 years had come from a Conservative Government. That claim was regarded as preposterous by most of the distinguished members of the gathering. I suspect that if that distinguished gathering were asked now whether it approved of the Government's approach on this matter, a response similar to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham would be forthcoming.
I fear that this whole development is an exercise in the divide-and-rule principle. In my view, there is an urgent need for an increase in the resources available for nature conservation. Instead we are to have, at the very least a hiccup in the council's commitment and activities. Only last year, the conservation bodies of Britain, led by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, published a document called "Losing Ground". I hope that the Minister has read it. It is a stark and serious representation of the damage being done to our environment, not least to our SSSIs sites of special scientific interest. It seems to me to be singularly unfortunate that the Government should be inflicting major changes on our official conservation structures at a time when the environment is in retreat.
I shall not criticise people such as the chairman of the English conservancy council. Lord Cranbrook, like his father, has a substantial record and that body will undoubtedly seek to make the best of a bad job. The Minister should bear in mind, however, that it is not all that long since Lord Rayner was set upon the Nature Conservancy Council as part of the Marks and Spencer exercise to detect inefficiency in the public service. Lord Rayner may have been able to detect inefficiencies in certain parts of the Government, but I think that the

Minister will confirm that the principal conclusion reached in respect of the NCC was that it did not have sufficient resources.
The most sensible approach that the Government could have adopted would have been to ensure that the resources were available and certainly not to take part in an exercise that will delay the defence of our environmental and ecological inheritance, which is under continuing threat and has not been helped by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) seems to assume that I come unwitting and unprepared to this debate. I must disabuse him of that assumption. Unlike him, I have seen the depredations of the Nature Conservancy Council in my constituency. It has planned to extend the area covered by sites of special scientific interest to 230,000 hectares of Caithness and Sutherland. I presume that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who argued by anecdote, was speaking of Mr. Sam Sinclair—a farmer for whom I have great admiration. The hon. Gentleman should extrapolate from that modest experience an understanding of the blight that the NCC is casting not only on my constituency but on large tracts of the highlands of Scotland, which he is kind enough to grace with his presence on holiday from time to time, and get more closely to grips with the problems of the highlands.
The one species that is at risk now is the human species. Sir William Wilkinson, whose praises have been sung on a number of occasions by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), has had the effrontery to suggest that the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland, which he proposes to protect by means of SSSIs, is one of the wonders of the world—comparable with the Taj Mahal. Would that that were so—would that we had one tithe of the visitors to the Taj Mahal to boost the flagging economy of Caithness and Sutherland, which is being attacked by environmentalists with no knowledge of the country, who know nothing about it and have never even visited the place.

Mr. Morley: I have visited Caithness and Sutherland on many occasions and I have spent some of my own money supporting research programmes for the benefit of the community in that area. I presume that the blight to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the restriction on forestry in the area, but will he confirm that forestry in the area is very heavily subsidised? Before the 1988 tax changes, every job in forestry in that area cost the taxpayer £200,000 or more. Would the hon. Gentleman put internationally agreed nature conservancy obligations, under the agreed definition of SSSIs, before the interests of totally uneconomic forestry?

Mr. Maclennan: I did not necessarily have in mind the interests of forestry. The interests of hill farming and crofting are much longer established in my constituency. Over the years, those activities have provided many more jobs than forestry. Forestry may have prospects for the future——

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I must deal with one intervention at a time.
I quote from a letter that I received yesterday from the Highland regional council's director of law and administration:


Notwithstanding the claim by the Nature Conservancy Council that the SSSI designation carries no presumption against development nor imposes material restrictions, the hill farming community in particular maintain profound reservations. There is continuing concern that the designation imposes the threat of restriction on hitherto normal agricultural and other land use operations. Affected parties are bound to obtain the NCC's agreement before proceeding with so-called potentially damaging operations.….The Regional Council would instance the concern and objection against designation voiced by the Caithness branch of the National Farmers Union and riparian owners in respect of the river Feshie where threat to normal and historic operations arises. Provision for appeal in such cases would provide a forum for proper exchange and reconciliation of conflicting views.
Of course, that is the fundamental objection that Highland regional council would wish to express: as a result of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, there is no forum in which disputes on land use can be settled—either with regard to equity or, for that matter, with regard to conflicting views about what is in the interests of the environment.
What is most disturbing about the views expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is that he seems to have it in mind, when or if a Labour Government are returned to office, to give the committee whose functions which we are discussing authoritative—perhaps even authoritarian—powers that would go considerably beyond those intended by the Government. I believe that the Government's approach is wholly right, and that the committee should have a more limited role than the role that appears to be advocated by the hon. Member for Dagenham.
I see that the impatient hon. Member for Wentworth wishes to intervene.

Mr. Hardy: It is a natural impatience. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to my earlier intervention.
As the hon. Gentleman is, I believe, currently a member of the Liberal party—or whatever its present name is—in the interests of the political record, will he recognise that his party has for a considerable time donned the green mantle? On many occasions, Liberal spokesmen have called for the defence of the flow country of Caithness and Sutherland because of its enormous international importance. From the hon. Gentleman's speech, I discern that he would be happy to see the important ecological character of the flow country sacrificed in the interests of forestry or food production for a small number of people, but in complete defiance of our international commitments—commitments which other members of his party have enthusiastically supported.

Mr. Maclennan: Probably no Member of Parliament has a greater knowledge of the flow country than I have, as it lies squarely within my constituency. With the greatest respect, I must tell the hon. Member for Wentworth that the flow country amounts to a relatively small area of ground—as it was originally understood in Caithness—which is unsuitable for afforestation and which no one has ever proposed should be afforested.
The flow country was redefined by various acolytes of Sir William Wilkinson to cover what he called the peak lands. The peak lands of Caithness and Sutherland are in no way unique; they are contiguous with those in Ross-shire, Inverness-shire and Argyll, and stretch across

half the land mass of Scotland. The idea that, by a process of creeping designation, half of Scotland should be rendered subject to the jurisdiction of the Nature Conservancy Council, and to the restraints on activity that will be in place as a result of the council's designation, is preposterous and shows no sensitivity to the needs of the resident community or, indeed, the desirability of an environment that people from other communities might conceivably wish to visit.
I am delighted that the Government have taken the handling of the difficult and sensitive task of resolving conflicts of interest concerning land use—which have bedevilled the highland question not just for decades but almost for centuries—away from that insensitive body in Peterborough.

Mr. Dick Douglas: What is wrong with Peterborough?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman obviously regards the Peterborough lot as a sensitive crowd.

Mr. Douglas: I speak as a former member of the Scottish committee of the Nature Conservancy Council. In my day—with Morton Boyd and others—these issues were handled with great sensitivity; however, I am not up to date with some of the current factors. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he should not think that these things were dealt with insensitively in the past. I hope that what the Government propose for the future will mean that the issue will again be treated sensitively.

Mr. Maclennan: The so-called flow country is an invention which did not exist 20 years ago. When I was elected as a Member of Parliament almost a quarter of a century ago, no hon. Member would have known what was meant by the flow country of Caithness. Far from being one of the wonders of the world, it was an impenetrable bog. One or two people wandered up there and looked at some of the rarer mosses, and enthusiasts recently out of college discovered some interesting variants. Of course they were enthusiastic about it and of course, having been given jobs by the Nature Conservancy Council, they sought to persuade people that the rare birds, which are not that rare in Scandinavia, and the grasses and mosses in the bogs of Caithness were of great importance.
I do not quarrel with that view, but I quarrel with the idea that one must have hundreds of thousands of acres to demonstrate their rarity. That is a preposterous suggestion; however, that it should enjoy the support of the Labour party does not come to me as any surprise, because Labour Members have shown no knowledge or understanding of rural matters. I had great problems when I was in the Labour party for just that reason.
6.45 pm
The Government seem to have got a difficult balance just about right. I am delighted with the appointment of Magnus Magnusson to run the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council. I am a strong supporter of nature conservation, and of the conservation of the flow country. Last summer, I went to open up the Spittal centre, in the middle of the flow country, which is designed to inform visitors. It will help them to understand the millions of circulars put out by the Royal Society for the Protection of


Birds. The flow country is certainly interesting and worth seeing, and if I can encourage others to go there my contribution to the debate will not have been in vain.
We cannot accept the idea that this body—against which there is no appeal—should continue to exercise such functions from Peterborough, and be run by a gentleman who is prepared to exaggerate the costs of doing so by a factor of three. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Dagenham to suggest that I have not given some thought to this matter. I have had a long exchange of letters with Sir William Wilkinson on the subject of the cost of these proposals. He has made it abundantly clear that I was right, and that the reorganisation itself is costing less than £10 million. He has constantly stated that it is costing £30 million. It is disreputable for a public employee to seek to mislead Parliament as he has done for so many months. His distortion of the position has soured the debate.

Mr. Gould: As the hon. Gentleman has chosen to repeat those unfortunate charges against a worthy public servant, I think that he should answer a simple question. Has he read the report on the basis of which Sir William Wilkinson made those points?

Mr. Maclennan: In his correspondence with me, Sir William himself has drawn precise attention to the points that the hon. Member for Dagenham has made. I am not at issue with him on the facts. Sir William has admitted that the reorganisation will cost a third of what he originally claimed. That kind of exaggeration is on a par with the suggestion that the flow lands of Caithness are the equivalent of the Taj Mahal.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Maclennan: I do not wish to take up the time of the House, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will have other opportunities to intervene.
I hope that the new committee, which has an important job to do in drawing together the scientific information that we might wish to use in international forums, will be allowed to get on with that job and will not be seen by some over-enthusiastic advocates of environmental empire-building as the repository of the powers that they would wish to be exercised. It must not be a vehicle for a new quango. It must be what the Government have provided. This is one of the very few areas in which we can say that the Government have got it right in terms of public opinion in the areas most affected by the operations of the NCC—the highlands and islands of Scotland.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and I had particular sympathy with much of what he said. In strengthening the Nature Conservancy Council, as the Government intend, there must nevertheless be a word of warning. For all too many people, a conservationist today is a young man or woman who appears on the scene inappropriately dressed, probably wearing a woolly hat and a dayglo anorak, who proceeds to tell people what they should and should not do with their property.
I believe that the proposals will strengthen the NCC and that is right. Nevertheless, there must be more responsibility with that strengthening. That in turn means

that the people who represent the NCC, particularly in Scotland and in Wales, must know what they are talking about. They must know the area.
In the past, people from Peterborough arrived in the highlands of Scotland or on the west coast to tell a farmer whose land was being destroyed, perhaps by the Greenland white-fronted goose, that he must do nothing to stop the geese eating his grass, destroying the field and thus ensuring that the fanner's stock had nothing left to eat. Those farmers make their livelihood from the land. In future, I hope that the people who arrive from the Scottish branch, understand something about the topography of the highlands, and about the way of life and farming in that area. Together with the conservationist ethic, I hope that they will also bring responsibility and a full knowledge of the way of life of those people, so that conservation and knowledge can walk side by side.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that it is time to unsour this debate. I recall that in 1965, like many of my colleagues, I was sweating my guts out in Caithness and Sutherland trying to get the present hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) elected as a Labour Member of Parliament for the constituency. I just cannot remember him telling the electors that they were living in an impenetrable bog. I do not think that he said that. The truth of the matter is that the flow country is nationally important. Bluntly, I can speak only for myself. If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is concerned, as he should be, about the future of his constituents, he should look to the future of the fast reactor and the work at Dounreay. However, that is a different subject from the flow country.
I know that other hon. Members want to vote on this issue, so I will cut my speech to the minimum, on condition that we get some clarification from the Secretary of State for the Environment about a point that has been bothering us. He is familiar with the problem: what exactly do the figures amount to? As we understand it, the £9.78 million is just enough to stand still. In order to bring about the necessary improvements or enhancements, at least £20 million to £30 million will be needed.
I promise to shut up if the Secretary of State will come to the Dispatch Box and give us his interpretation of the figures. This is a perfectly serious question. My hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and For Dagenham (Mr. Gould) have made all the major points. Will the Secretary of State clarify the financial position in relation to the £9.78 million and the chairman's figure of £20 million to £30 million? Will the Secretary of State curtail my speech?

Mr. Trippier: I will reply in a moment.

Mr. Dalyell: Well, it would be more satisfactory if the Secretary of State would reply. I have a long speech with me.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I learned many years ago that it is fatal to enter this Chamber while the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is waiting to speak, because on several earlier occasions he has lured me to the Dispatch Box to deliver myself of observations which I would otherwise have kept to myself.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will shortly reply to the debate. He will reply


in terms to the point advanced by the hon. Member for Linlithgow on this occasion as on others about the costs of reorganisation. We have returned to that matter several times in the Chamber, and also in Committee.
Over the past decade, we have substantially increased the funds available to the Nature Conservancy Council, to the tune of about 140 per cent. That record contrasts substantially with the record of our predecessors. The amount of money that we make available for reorganisation and for future enhancement of the work of the NCC will ensure that it manages to go from stength to strength, carrying out important for nature conservation within the reorganised framework which we have quite properly put before the House. My hon. Friend the Minister will, I hope, have a chance to address the House on the detailed figures, provided that the hon. Member for Linlithgow allows him to do so within the next two or three hours.

Mr. Dalyell: I will keep to my part of the bargain and resume my seat.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I seek clarification about Lords amendment No. 271. I am slightly suspicious about the reference to
functions which may … be discharged only through the joint committee;
I want some reassurance in particular about the designation of sites of special scientific interest.
The Minister is aware that we very much welcome the creation of separate Nature Conservancy Council bodies for the three nations. I firmly believe that a separate Scottish body will make a significant contribution to better managed conservation and to caring for the whole countryside when it joins with the Countryside Commission.
My party and many other bodies in Scotland welcome the proposal because of the perception, and in many instances the reality, that the NCC was indeed run by a group of faceless scientists in Peterborough who failed to recognise that nature conservation and designation would work only if they took local opinion with them. The absence of that was an arrogance that we could well have done without.
Indeed, there was a time—matters have since improved, I think—when the public image of the NCC in Scotland was at an all-time low. Many people in the field were figures of fun and subjected to ridicule. It must have been difficult for them to operate. I do not want that ridicule to continue. The wildlife habitats in Scotland are as good as they are because of the way in which the land has been managed by the past and present rural population. There would be nothing to designate if crofters and farmers had not looked after their areas.
7 pm
My worry is the imposition of blanket SSSIs occupying large tracts of country. That has happened all too often, and it makes life difficult for crofters and farmers because the owner of the land may do nothing without first obtaining the approval of the NCC. That is when ridicule occurs. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) said, young NCC personnel wear woolly hats and dayglo coats and have accents similar to the hon. Gentleman's. It is not accepted happily by crofters and

farmers in my part of the country when they are told that they must do this, that and the other to preserve the corncrake, the pine marten or whatever.
Before SSSIs are imposed, the NCC is supposed to carry out a broad scientific survey of an area followed by detailed field investigations. How many sites have been imposed on the basis of superficial surveys? How much indiscriminate conservation has taken place? Thirty-two square miles of land on the island of Isla in my constituency has been designated, but to what purpose? All the concern about which we have heard is rightly for conservation and for habitats, but what about the people? If they are pushed out because of declining land values and an inability to farm or to croft as before, we shall see clearances. I do not say that that will happen. I am confident that, when we in Scotland have our own body, designation will be done with much greater sensitivity.
Mention has been made of Caithness and Sutherland. I too received a letter from the Highland regional council. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) did not give the important figures. The regional council's letter states that the
designation extends to over 70,000 hectares already and the intentions of the NCC in the whole area of Caithness and Sutherland will extend designation to about 230,000 hectares Also we have evidence of proposals to designate individual areas of vast dimension, one extending to over 400,000 hectares".
We must examine that blanket designation much more carefully in future. Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was never intended to mean that vast tracts of land would be designated. Rather, it was intended to mean that unique places of scientific interest would be preserved.
The other great worry to people in Scotland, and to my constituents in particular—I hope that it will be rectified when the new body is set up—is that the NCC has been judge and jury and there has been no right of appeal. People are upset that that has happened. I have had many letters from constituents. One constituent says that he recently received notification of the designation of 180 acres of his farm as an SSSI. He said:
The offending article is a rare … (weed) which flowers under
a loch on his farm. That loch covers 70 acres. He said:
To protect this they have not only notified the loch but also over 100 acres of ground round about it. The agricultural value of this land is small but as it is surrounded by fences and trees and also has a road through the area it is a very valuable site
for planting broadleaved trees—
one of the main things I am prohibited from.
In effect they have wiped about £25–30,000 of asset from my farm, plus any potential purchaser of the farm is going to be greatly put off".
A potential purchaser will be put off because of the designation.
He went on to state:
They inform me I will be entitled to no compensation!
I hope that there will be a big improvement in what goes on in Scotland. I too welcome the appointment of Magnus Magnusson. It was a master stroke on the part of the Secretary of State to have chosen that gentleman, for all sorts of reasons. I hope that the Minister will assure me that, in future, designation will be in the hands of the Scottish body.

Mr. Morley: The Opposition have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 271, in respect of sites of


special scientific interest. The crux of the debate is whether the NCC is being reorganised on the basis of malice or of providing a better delivery of nature conservation services. The way to judge that is based on the scientific delivery of that service.
The same amendment was supported by Lord Carver, who chaired the committee which inquired into the joint co-ordinating committee and the role of the part VII amendment, which was praised by the Government, and also by Lord Buxton. He is not a Labour supporter, but he resigned from the council of the NCC because he was a man of principle and did not like the destruction of the world's oldest nature conservation body and one of the world's best nature concervation bodies.
Anybody who genuinely care about nature conservation would recognise that, if we are to designate and monitor sites of special scientific interest, exactly the same criteria and the same scientific bases for designation must apply in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We cannot have different bases for designation of countryside areas. Apart from anything else, how can we meet our international obligations if we do not have agreed criteria for designation?

Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point. It is some long years since I suggested that there should be an attempt to come up with the categories of scientific definition that the hon. Gentleman describes. Does he really believe that we can have such categories across the United Kingdom in respect of places such as the flow country, which is peat bog, in Caithness? There is absolutely no parallel in England.

Mr. Morley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there should be agreed criteria, but he does not understand how the designations work. It is simple to agree a criterion for designation in terms of, for example, what species are in the data book and what percentage of species are of national or international importance. All those criteria exist at the moment and are well known to scientists.
There is therefore no difficulty about having agreed criteria so that such sites in Scotland, England or Wales are designated on exactly the same basis, so that decisions are not influenced by vested interests or by those people in dayglo coats and woolly hats who may exist in Walthamstow, although I have not come across those mythical creatures either out in the countryside or in the scientific community.
We need to have that basis and those criteria. As Lord Buxton said in the debate in the Lords, if we do not have agreed criteria for designation,
it can only mean that the reasons behind it are political, bureaucratic, nationalistic or something of that kind, which should have no relation to the standards which are applied to sites of scientific interest."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 1306–7.]
It is significant that not a single national nature conservation body in either England or Scotland has been convinced by the Government's argument. There is no doubt that there is an argument for local delivery of nature conservation. Opposition Members believe in that, as do the nature conservation organisations. We believe that we could have a system which delivers nature conservation on a local basis and which involves local people and local decision-making. However, there must be some national

criteria for designating sites of scientific importance and for meeting our international obligations, which we do not have at the moment.
The Government must accept the amendment. I ask all reasonable and thinking Members to consider how we can have important sites of scientific interest if decisions on them are to be influenced by vested interests, as has happened in Caithness and Sutherland, be They landowners, foresters or farmers. Sites of special scientific interest involve management agreements. From the point of view of the crofters, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), it is better to have a management agreement that encourages them to stay on the land and to croft in traditional, environmentally friendly ways than to have income support, which is based on packing more and more sheep on to their land, with all the environmental degradation that that involves.
We want a change in support—and I believe that we can achieve it—but we want it on the basis of science, not with the involvement of vested interests. If the Government do not accept the amendment on scientific grounds, they should hang their heads in shame, as should all those who support them, for what is no less than environmental vandalism.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is probably the first time that it is an advantage in this House for this hon. Member to have Welsh, Scots and English ancestry. I shall be brief, because hon. Members are gathering in the expectation of a vote.
The debate has been passionate and has aroused strong feelings. That in itself says something about the degree of dissatisfaction with the centralised character of the Nature Conservancy Council. My colleagues and I have always believed that there was a strong argument for the NCC to be devolved to powers in Scotland, England and Wales.
On that principle, we have therefore taken what has at times been an unpopular line and have supported the Government. We have also not argued against—indeed, we have argued in favour of—a co-ordinating role. Time will tell whether the proposed new structure is the right one and whether it is adequately funded. The money that has been allocated may not be sufficient, but we shall see.
7.15 pm
We welcome the scientific advice that it is proposed that the joint committee will offer to the national councils in England, Scotland and Wales because such advice should be given impartially. I agree with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) that it should be given by a body a step away from the local pressures, so that each nation's decisions can be made by locally well-informed people and, most importantly, to ensure that the decisions that are ultimately reached are made after the proper balance has been struck between environmental and economic considerations as part of a proper debate.
We must ensure that we have the best scientific advice and the best and most appropriately informed local decision making. That is why my hon. Friends and I are signatories to both the amendments. I do not know whether they will be pushed to a vote, but I hope that the Government accept them because I hope that they accept that there is a need for adequate scientific advice relating to the SSSIs.
In answer to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), it is equally important to ensure that the environmental arguments against nuclear waste dumping should be heard loudly and clearly. It is very clear, especially in Scotland, that people do not want nuclear waste on their land. Proper Government policy would ensure that they do not have it.
I hope that the Minister will accede to the request that the Government should accept the amendment. I hope that he will listen to the voices that are sceptical about the new arrangements.. I hope that he will give the House an undertaking that, whatever the difficulties of their birth, the new arrangements will enjoy the Government's watchful concern, so that, as and when more resources are needed by conservation bodies, either locally in each of the three nations or across Great Britain, the Government will not be reluctant to produce either the resources or the support for the conservation of what are often among the most important scientific and environmental sites in the world.

Mr. Trippier: I find myself in a unique position. I have never experienced or participated in a debate in which the Government have had the support of three Liberal Members. It is incredibly unnerving but, because of something that I shall reveal to the House in a few moments, I am comforted by the fact that the Liberal peers down the Corridor did not take the same view as the Liberal Members of this House. That is another superb example of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. Nevertheless, I welcome the support that I have received from those hon. Members today.
The Government's case for reorganising the countryside agencies has been fully spelt out in both Houses on seven separate occasions. We also gave detailed written and oral evidence to the Carver committee and then responded positively to the Carver recommendations. The majority of these substantive amendments translate that positive response into the Bill. So everyone knows where the Government stand.
The same could not really be said for the Labour party—or indeed, as I shall seek to illustrate, for the Liberal Democrats. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for at last ensuring that we have some insight into the Labour party's thinking, even if there is not an "Earthly Chance" that he will have to worry about how to translate this into action.
I must, however, be fair to the hon. Gentleman—he knows that I often am. In fact, some of what the document has to say is surprisingly good. Let me run through a few of its main prescriptions. It states:
there does need to be devolution of the management of the countryside … and nature conservation so that decisions taken are responsive to the needs of local people and their economic well-being.
That is exactly what part VII is all about and what it is seeking to achieve from next April.
The Labour party document also states:
We need a body which can take a strategic view of threats
to the ecology of Britain
and can ensure that the UK meets its international obligations under EC directives, the Ramsar Agreement and other similar agreements and treaties".
That is exactly what I shall be expecting the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to cover. That body is notable by its absence from the Labour party's document, in which it did not get even a single mention.
Finally, the Labour party states:
we want to see an integration of nature conservation and the functions of the Countryside Commission".
At first sight, that seems to mark a major difference, but the document says later that Labour would proceed with a merger only once a consensus had been achieved after extensive consultations. Obtaining consensus from the many interests involved may not be as easy as Labour Members imagine, but even so, I cannot see that there is much daylight between this and the assurance which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State already gave in the Government's White Paper that we would review the case for merging the Countryside Commission and the NCC for England after the new agencies had settled down.
For once, therefore, I must congratulate the Labour Party. It has wrestled with the obvious divisions in its ranks between the nature devolutionist tendency and the nature centralisation tendency.

Mr. Morley: There are no such divisions.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) says that there are no such divisions—as if there were not Conservative Members present who served on the Standing Committee and watched with interest the great divisions on the other side of the Committee. In the same way, we saw divisions in the House on Second Reading. Arm wrestling, not only in the House but in Committee, went on between those groups. It made interesting diversions for all of us.

Mr. Gould: The Minister is living in a fantasy world.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is hardly qualified to speak: he hardly attended the Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State probably paired for the majority of the time, but I estimate that he attended about five times as many sittings as the hon. Member for Dagenham. After the arm wrestling, the devolutionists came out on top. That is hardly surprising, because the Leader of the Opposition issued a ringing endorsement of the Countryside Council for Wales as long ago as November last year.
The supreme prize for the earliest endorsement of the Government's proposal must go to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who welcomed what he described as a sensible rationalisation. He said that within a few hours of the original announcement.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) spoke to amendment (b) to amendment No. 271. The amendment is completely unnecessary. The existing NCC has never lacked the power to give advice to all the relevant authorities on matters which relate to nature conservation. The new bodies will be in exactly the same position. There will be no change.
Any proposal for the disposal of low-level waste will be treated as a development proposal under the planning system and the NCC will be consulted as appropriate.
As I said, it was entertaining to see the divisions in the Labour party when we examined part VII of the Bill. As ever, the Liberal Democrats opted for a more subtle form of disarray. They supported the proposals in this House, and castigated them in another place. I have no wish to embarrass the hon. Members who have spoken today, but their noble Friend Lord Ross voted against the Government in every Division on part VII. He voted to extend the remit of the JNCC to cover the countryside. He voted for amendments that would have put the JNCC on


the road to being an independent quango—something which I recall the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) rightly deprecated when we considered similar amendments in the House——

Mrs. Ray Michie: I am surprised that the Minister chooses to refer to what Lord Ross did in the other place. He should know that here in the House we are dealing with what the Bill does and how it will affect our constituencies. I am surprised that he is not prepared graciously to accept our support. Regardless of what was said in the other place, in my maiden speech in the House in 1987 I called for a separate Scottish NCC. There is nothing new in that.

Mr. Trippier: I respected and admired the hon. Lady for calling for it. I was impressed by her foresight. I was simply saying that there seems to be a great deal of difference between the Liberal party in this House and the Liberal party stance in the upper House. I have already taken the opportunity to compliment the three Liberal Democrat Members on the speeches that they have made in this debate.
Resources and staffing have been raised on three occasions. On resources, I reaffirm the commitment that we have given throughout, that the new agencies will have resources fully adequate to fulfil their functions. I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say in the statement on public expenditure next month, but I remind Opposition Members of the Government's record in raising the budget of the NCC by 150 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and that of the Countryside Commission by 112 per cent. over the same period. So the Government have every right to be believed when they say that they will provide sufficient funding for the new agencies.
Since the Inbucon report was prepared for the NCC, detailed government studies about the staffing of the country agencies, the needs of the JNCC, the scope for common services and information technology requirements have come to fruition. That matter was fully covered by Lady Blatch in the upper House. I do not propose to rehearse the arguments again. I am confident that the agencies will have sufficient staff to take over from the NCC and the Countryside Commission next April and that, once established, they will rapidly prove how unfounded are the Opposition's fears that the agencies will not be worthy successors of the existing agencies.

Mr. Dalyell: When is the chief officer likely to be appointed to the JNCC? Without a chief officer, how can it possibly be in place by April? Does the Minister accept that it takes £9·78 million even to stand still, and that extra money will be needed in the statement for any enhancement?

Mr. Trippier: That latter point may well turn out to be right. I am happy to confirm that it will take approximately £10 million to deal with the reorganisation. I have said that publicly in the past. The figure has been confirmed by Sir William Wilkinson. I do not demur from anything that I have said in the past. It is a substantial figure, but the principal part of the reorganisation costs will deliver better conservation at local level. That is the purpose of this part of the Bill.
The whole House should take this opportunity of sending our best wishes to the new chairman Lord Cranbrook, Mr. Magnus Magnusson, Mr. Michael

Griffith and Professor Holliday. The Government do riot have to prove their commitment to nature conservation. When the Opposition were last in office, they cut the budget of the NCC in real terms. The truth is that they do not care. They are the environmental vandals. I ask the House to support the Government.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 186; Noes 307.

Division No. 345]
[7.28 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Maria


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gordon, Mildred


Barron, Kevin
Gould, Bryan


Battle, John
Graham, Thomas


Beckett, Margaret
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bellotti, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bermingham, Gerald
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bidwell, Sydney
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Blunkett, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Boateng, Paul
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Hood, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Bob
Lambie, David


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ron


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Coleman, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Livingstone, Ken


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
McAllion, John


Crowther, Stan
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McFall, John


Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Dr John
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Darling, Alistair
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)


Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Fearn, Ronald
Michael, Alun


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Hoeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie






Mullin, Chris
Skinner, Dennis 


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Nellist, Dave
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


O'Brien, William
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


O'Hara, Edward
Snape, Peter


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Vaz, Keith


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robertson, George
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Worthington, Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wray, Jimmy


Ruddock, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Ray Powell.


Short, Clare





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Curry, David


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas, Dick


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Favell, Tony


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fishburn, John Dudley


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Dame Janet


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Chris
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butterfill, John
Franks, Cecil


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gale, Roger





Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mans, Keith


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miller, Sir Hal


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Harris, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayes, Jerry
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Price, Sir David


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, Sir William


Lilley, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Trotter, Neville


Squire, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Steen, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 120

COUNTRYSIDE FUNCTIONS OF WELSH COUNCIL

Lords amendment: No. 259, in page 124, line 5, leave out ("enactments specified in") and insert ("Acts amended by").

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Trippier.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 260 to 262, 352, and 354 to 365.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The amendment is important for us in Wales and I should be grateful for some comments from the Minister on the way in which the Bill has been changed since it was sent to another place.
Several amendments are linked with amendment No. 259; a particularly important one is Lords amendment No. 261, which broadens the responsibilities given to the new body and says that it
shall have regard to the social and economic interests of rural areas in Wales".
We need fully to understand two aspects of this issue. The first is that, although we have in our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty places which need the protection of the legislation and of the body that we are setting up, other areas also warrant attention. I take it from a reading of the debate in the other place and from the wording of the Lords amendment that the new body will be given a broader remit to enable it to pay attention to the needs of areas outside the national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Countryside Council for Wales should have a broad remit in all areas of outstanding beauty. Part of the Snowdonia national park and some areas designated as heritage coastline and areas of outstanding beauty are in my constituency, but other areas not so designated equally require the attention and help given by the legislation.
7.45 pm
A second reason why it is important that the social and economic interests of rural areas be considered alongside environmental interests is that the countryside is not an area of some dead hand, merely to be kept as a park for people from outside to play in. The countryside in Wales, in national parks and elsewhere, is a place where people live and work and need to enjoy a full, balanced life, so the social and economic interests of these areas must be considered, too. If that is done sensitively, with one ear to the needs of the local population, the right balance can be struck; but if it is not struck, there could be a real threat.
I am sorry that no Minister from the Welsh Office is present for this debate. Welsh Office Ministers need to take an interest in it, because a body for Wales is being set up in a Welsh context. Differences in Wales have merited the structure that the Government have brought forward, and the Welsh Office will be directly involved in its day-to-clay activities.
Some years ago, before a major electric pump storage scheme was to come along in Snowdonia—the exciting Dinorwig scheme in my constituency—a rearguard action against the project was fought even though it provided 2,000 jobs for a period and 100 permanently. A "Save Our Snowdonia" campaign was launched, and the registered officer of that campaign, if I recollect aright, operated from Birkenhead. That did not go down very well with the people living in the area. Not for a moment am I denigrating the need to take into account the environmental interest of such beautiful areas, or the importance of access to them for people from outside who want to enjoy them, but the people who live and work in the areas also have interests which must be considered.
In the debate in another place on this clause, Baroness White said that not all the uncertainties had been cleared up in the late changes to the legislation. She referred to the differences between England and Wales and said, at column 1305 on 23 October——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will paraphrase it. I think that he knows the practices of this House.

Mr. Wigley: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. The burden of the Baroness's point about some of the weaknesses of the wording in the Bill was that it was unfortunate that, even at this late stage, we have not managed to come up with legislation to deal more thoroughly with these matters. Lord Prys-Davies said the same on another occasion.
There remain some question marks about the wording of the Bill, and I should be glad of some clarification from the Minister. Perhaps he will let us know about the appointment of the person who will apparently take over the new body in Wales. That has been a matter of some controversy, and I very much hope that the final appointment will prove to be broadly acceptable. I have been asked questions about the appointment over the summer—for instance, about whether it was going ahead.
Lords amendment No. 352 provides for an annual statement by the council on promotion of the enjoyment of the countryside by disabled members of the public, which is most important to them. We have seen a growth in activities for the disabled such as angling, which bring considerable pleasure to people who cannot participate in activities enjoyed by others. It is often necessary to make


thoughtful provision for the disabled in the form of ramps, specially designed car parks, and even footpaths that are, within reason, laid out in such a way that the disabled can use them. However, a balance must be struck, because one wants to protect the natural environment, but it often conflicts with the interests of the disabled.
Although I welcome the new responsibility being placed on the council to take into account the needs of the disabled, it is one thing to require the council to make a report, and quite another to ensure that the necessary action is taken—particularly as it might have resource implications. As the Government accept Lords amendment No. 352, will they also give special consideration to the resource implications of making provision for the disabled in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and the countryside generally?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asked whether the Countryside Council for Wales's remit will extend beyond national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The answer is a straightforward yes, and so it should be. The commitment by my colleagues in the Welsh Office to the Welsh mandate, which was debated in another place, means that consideration will be given to the social and economic interests of rural areas. Normally, my immediate reaction would have been that responsibility for social and economic development should lie with the Development Board for Rural Wales. However, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it should be considered also by the new body.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be aware that the Development Board for Rural Wales covers only the old five counties of mid-Wales, so it is important that the new council should have responsibility for the important rural areas outside those five counties.

Mr. Trippier: I am even more pleased to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the council must consider the social and economic consequences for those new areas. In England, such a mandate would be confined to the Rural Development Commission, quite separately from the Countryside Commission, but that will not be the case in Wales, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome. Mr. Michael Griffith has been appointed and is the chairman in waiting, but unless I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I have no knowledge of the criticism to which he referred.

Mr. Wigley: I was speaking of the new director who will be answerable to Mr. Michael Griffith, who has been the subject of some controversy.

Mr. Trippier: I am not qualified to comment on the appointment of an executive director, which would normally be the responsibility of the countryside council and its board members, not Ministers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish it to be otherwise. Perhaps he would like to raise that issue with Mr. Griffiths.
Lords amendment No. 261 provides a clear mandate for the new Countryside Council for Wales and carries through the same statutory functions of the Countryside Commission. That does not mean, as was suggested in another place, that those two organisations will have to do exactly the same things. However, they are being given the same kind of skeleton, and each can flesh it out in its own

way, within the limits imposed. That also means that they will be able to learn from each other, whereas, if they had different functions, one body might not be able to adopt the other's successful ideas because it lacked the necessary statutory authority.
As to access to the countryside by the disabled, the hon. Gentleman has a proven track record, and I compliment him on his interest in, and concern and support for, the disabled, as I have in the past. I have not the slightest doubt that improved access must include that for the disabled. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who I am convinced will be sympathetic to the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

New Clause

PUBLIC REGISTERS OF LAND WHICH MAY BE CONTAMINATED

Lords amendment: No. 292, before clause 133 insert the following new Clause—

(".—(1) For the purposes of the registers to be maintained under this section, the Secretary of State may, by regulations—
(a) specify contaminative uses of land;
(b) prescribe the form of the registers and the particulars to be included in them; and
(c) make such other provision as appears to him to be appropriate in connection with the maintenance of the registers.

(2) It shall be the duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) above on a local authority is a duty to compile and maintain the register from the information available to the authority from time to time.

(4) A local authority shall secure that the register is open to inspection at its principal office by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours and shall afford to members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1)(c) above may prescribe the measures to be taken by local authorities for informing persons whose land is the subject of entries in a register about the entries or for enabling them to inform themselves about them.

(6) In this section—
"contaminative use" means any use of land which may cause it to be contaminated with noxious substances;
"land subject to contamination" means land which is being or has been put to a contaminative use;
"local authority" means—
(a) in Greater London, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;
(b) in England and Wales outside Greater London, a district council;
(c) in Scotland, a planning authority; and
(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and


"substance" means any natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour.")

Read a Second time.

Ms. Walley: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in subsection (1)(a), at
end insert '() define contamination'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, in subsection ( 1 )(b), after 'them', insert
'together with the types of investigation to be conducted for the purposes of identifying contaminated land which is—
(i) contaminating other land or water (including contamination from mine workings);
(ii) causing no damage in its present condition; or
(iii) suitable for development or other use.'.
Amendment (c) to the proposed amendment, in subsection (3), at end insert
'and to undertake such investigations for the purpose of the compilation of the register as may be by the Secretary of State by Order made eligible for such assistance as he considers appropriate, and in respect of land falling within subsection (1)(b)(iii) above the cost of such investigations may thereafter in whole or part be a charge on that land payable to the Secretary of State by the person developing or otherwise making use of the land).'.
I have to inform the House that Lords amendment No. 292 involves privilege.

Ms. Walley: As there exist clean air quality standards, we should be moving towards a system of quality objectives for clean land also. Anyone who has lived near derelict or contaminated land will know the importance of having it cleaned up in the interests of the community and of the public at large. Identifying which land is contaminated and the nature of the contamination is the first step towards achieving that objective.
At earlier stages of the Bill, it seemed that the Government were not in favour of establishing a contaminated land register. The very fact that we have moved on from that position is to be welcomed. This evening, the message that needs to be got across is that when the Minister agreed that the Government would go away and consider this matter he gave his assurance that that would be done in full consultation with the local authorities concerned. If we are to make any progress with drawing up a register of contaminated land, local authorities will have to be fully involved and will need the resources to carry it out.
8 pm
Consultation with local authorities is the reason for our amendments. We have had a commitment to consultation and the Department of the Environment has issued a consultation document, which I understand was based on fairly extensive studies carried out in Cheshire, but a scheme was not properly introduced. At that stage, there was concern about the way in which a contaminated land register would be established. It is important for the Government to confirm that that consultation exercise should continue. During the course of further consultation—I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that full consultation will take place—we should get some idea of what form it might take. It is all well and good to know that there may be contamination somewhere, but that knowledge needs to be supported by additional investigative effort to determine whether or not

contamination exists. Having established that it exists arid its nature, it is then important to decide on remedial action. Also, the local authorities involved need a priority ranking for deciding how soon action should be taken.
I am sure that the register will be useful when bids are made for improvement of derelict land and in helping local authorities to decide how to deal with rolling programmes for contaminated land.
The compilation of a register should be far more than an aid to potential developers which, according to the Lords amendment, is now the Government's intention. Registration of contaminated land should be a wider issue. The register should be used as a basis for restoring such land either for development or, if it does not reach that grade, for some other useful purpose. Therefore, we need to do a thorough job, and we need complete information on the nature of contamination.
When considering the form of consultation, we must decide whether blight which might arise when a site is registered as contaminated should be taken into account. We need to have regard to the effect that registration could have on nearby property values. That, in turn, raises the issue of compensation. However, blight should not be regarded as an argument against the register. We need to work out a method which will bear in mind the long-term implications of a register.
The need for a clear and complete definition of contamination, as set out in our amendments, is fundamental. That definition needs to be established and then applied nationally. If that is not done, misleading comparisons about the scale and nature of the problem could be made in different local authority areas. In the preceding debate, we discussed sites of special scientific interest and the need to study them on a national basis so that standards applied to one could be applied uniformly to the others. That should also apply to contaminated land.
During consultation, we need to have regard to the question of liability for contamination and to consider blight. If we are to do more than a mere desktop study of the way in which the contaminated land register will be compiled by each local authority and how it will be applied nationally, it is obvious that financial resources will be required. That calls into question the estimates given of the cost of setting up the register. Has the Minister taken into account the greater financial consideration that will be involved, especially in view of the debate on standard spending assessments which I understand will take place tomorrow? It is important to know how much of the additional cost will be accepted by the Government, arid how much money will be available from central Government to deal with the problem. I have also touched briefly on methodology. It is important that extra resources are provided so that the problem can be dealt with in much the same way in different areas.
For all those reasons, we believe that it is important that the final stages of this legislation should not be concluded today without further assurances from the Minister about how he expects the registration of contaminated land to be dealt with.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I and my colleagues are signatories to these three amendments, and I do not wish to amplify at any length what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. North (Ms. Walley) said.
Each amendment contains valid points. Clearly, we need to define contamination. We welcomed Lords amendment No. 292 which provides that there should be a public register, as it is important. Like many other hon. Members, I know from constituency experience—this applies especially in urban areas but also elsewhere—that people want to know exactly what use has been made of a particular site, the chemical and physical effects and their consequences upon the land. The only way to achieve that is a public, and easily accessible, register. The imposition of a duty upon local authorities to keep such a register will be a useful addition to the right to know about the local environment, whether one is a local resident, an occupier, a prospective purchaser or whatever.
The second amendment seeks to establish the seriousness of contamination, and that is equally important. Once one knows the extent of contamination the appropriate response can be made, and once such knowledge is publicly available it is more likely that, even if other authorities do not respond, public opinion will be mobilised and will force public or private authorities to take the appropriate action
The second amendment seeks to establish the extent of contamination and that may also have beneficial effects, as it may release land for development which would otherwise have been blighted. Clearly the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment would welcome that. Sometimes, urban land does not sell, or it cannot be developed because it is thought to be contaminated, and the register would deal with that problem.
The third amendment is practical. The person who benefits should contribute to the cost of administration involved in establishing the physical quality and the consequences of contamination upon the land.
I hope that all the amendments are either immediately acceptable, or can be accepted as suggestions for moving in the right direction. Also, I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the welcome addition of a register can be strengthened by the addition of these amendments.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome the fact that the Minister has honoured the commitment that he gave in Committee that the Government will take note of the Select Committee's report on contaminated land, which was published while that Committee was dealing with the Bill. We welcome the fact that a move has been made—it is certainly a step in the right direction.
The amendments try to improve on what the Government have done. I hate to say so, but the Minister is genuinely concerned about the problem of contaminated land. I know, because he represents a neighbouring constituency to mine, and ours is a part of the country that has more than its fair share of contaminated sites, because it was in at the birth of the industrial revolution. The same is true of sites in many industrial towns and other places. I therefore do not doubt the Minister's concern.
The Select Committee recommended that there should be a national register and a national method to ensure conformity. That important principle is enshrined in one of the amendments. It would be wrong if one system were used in Brighton, Eastbourne and Bournemouth and another one in Bermondsey, Manchester, Rossendale and

Burnley. We must ensure that the same criteria are used to determine contamination. The Select Committee recognised that that may cause difficulties. We suspect that many areas of land are contaminated, but the problems cannot always be identified. I recognise that it would be impossible overnight to compile an accurate record of the type of contamination on each site.
Contaminated land could be used for one purpose and it would not cause problems. However, there might be problems if the land use changed. For example, contaminated land could properly be used for parking cars. The site would be open to the air. If, however, the land use changed and houses were built upon it, the contamination would cause problems. We must ensure that the initial development on contaminated land is suitable. We must also ensure that the land is suitable for future development. we do not wish large areas of land to be made sterile. The Minister is aware of the problems that that would cause in his constituency.
This is a complex issue. Our amendments go further than the direction in which the Government are moving, due to the amendment that was carried in the other place. If the Minister cannot accept them, I hope that he will at least assure us that consultation will take place on the serious issues involved. We all know that there are difficulties. There should be consultation with the local authority associations and local authorities to ensure that we get it right. We do not want problems to arise later because we rush through legislation and get it wrong.
If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendments, I hope that at least he will say that the Government are not absolutely certain that they have got it right, that they will hold consultations so that future disasters can be prevented and that they will ensure that there are safeguards to cover both immediate and subsequent developments. I hope, too, that the Government will ensure that everything possible is done, by means of better industrial waste disposal, to prevent the creation of new contaminated sites. Their aim should be to keep to a minimum the creation of further contaminated sites, which would only add to the problem caused by the already large areas of contaminated land.

Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for his constructive and kind speech. I am also grateful to him for the nice things that he said about me. At the risk of being sycophantic, may I in turn say that I was most grateful for the all-party Select Committee report on the subject which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is incredibly complicated. A principal advantage of the Standing Committee procedure was that both sides of the Committee worked closely together and tried to get the legislation right.
We are entering the dramatic phase of having to identify what is contaminated land. It might help if I explained as briefly as possible what Lords amendment No. 292 says and then dealt, again briefly, with the amendments to it. After that, I shall explain how the consultation will take place. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was right to press me about that point.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Many contaminated sites cannot be identified because records have been either misplaced or lost. If housing is to be constructed on certain sites, should not the builder be required to carry


out test bores to establish whether the land is contaminated? It may not always be possible to identify contamination, but that procedure would go some way towards eliminating the problem of building houses on contaminated land.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman may take comfort from the fact that I believe that we should go further than that. He has identified an incredible problem that is to be found in many industrial areas. The records have been lost. Many hon. Members who have served in local government will recall that prior to local government reorganisation the records of land in rural district council areas that was either contaminated or uncontaminated were kept in the memory of the chief executive. They were not written down for posterity. I make a light-hearted point about it, but I believe that that is fact, not hypothesis.
I intend to ensure that the registers include details of all land that may be contaminated so that the checks that the hon. Gentleman believes ought to be carried out can take place. The registers would be compiled by local authority officers. They would have to scan the area in some detail. We estimate that it would cost—I always love coming out with such a comment on the Floor of the House—about half a person a year.

Mr. Redmond: I accept what the Minister says, but the problem that concerns me is that the poll tax and the rate support grant have placed a stranglehold on local authority finances. To carry out such an exercise, which I accept would be a good one, would cost money. Local authorities ain't got that money. Should not an obligation to contribute towards that expenditure be placed on firms that want to build on land that may be contaminated?

Mr. Trippier: If developments take place on land that has been contaminated but cleansed, principally by means of the derelict land grant that we make available, using taxpayers' money—it is the most successful grant that is made by any Government Department, because there is a leverage of 7:1, which I believe is unbeatable—the Government can and do play their part. If we were referring to half a dozen or a dozen district councillors having to do the job, I might agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to enter into a major debate on the issue, but the money is there. The derelict land grant is focused on mining closure areas. The hon. Gentleman will concede that in those areas we have changed the rules in order to allow soft after-use. We have not insisted on hard or economic development of those sites. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will confirm what I have said. He played a part in persuading me to change the rules when I had direct responsibility for the derelict land grant.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the Minister for the courteous and considered way in which he has dealt with a problem that both my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and I share. However, a powerful and grave anxiety remains, which I am sure that my hon. Friend shares: that although the Government have changed the rules, a change that owes much to the Minister, and although a slightly more helpful attitude has been adopted, the fact remains that the amount of money that is made available to assist the local authorities

represented by my hon. Friend and me to surmount the appalling problems that are to be found in the largest areas of dereliction in Britain is relatively modest. Therefore, we are less sanguine than the Minister believes we ought to be.

Mr. Trippier: There you go, Madam Deputy Speaker. That shows that one cannot win. When I was the Minister responsible for derelict land grant, I tried to find the extra money that the hon. Member for Wentworth wanted me to spend in his constituency. I even moved it from Lancashire—the finest county that God ever gave to man—trundled it across the barbed wire to the other side of the M62 and sent it up to the Rother valley. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to raise this matter on the Floor of the House when he knows that I did him the best favour that has ever been done for him by any Tory Minister. I am speechless. Well, I cannot be speechless because I have to continue with the amendment.
I have said that the register must contain all land that may be contaminated. It is important to make it clear that if there is the slightest doubt about any land, it must be on the register. I hope that all hon. Members grasp that. The public will have access to those registers. That was a courageous decision for us to take. They will give owners and potential buyers of a site details of any uses of that site that may have caused contamination. It was courageous of us to take that decision because it might blight an area. Many district authorities in our part of the world, especially in the north, have worked day and night to encourage inward investment and economic development. The district authorities may have to say, "Now that the register has come on stream, we have to admit that we have a lot of contaminated land." That would go down like a lead balloon with those considering investing in the area. That was what the hon. Member for Burnley referred to. It was a difficult decision, but I think that we have made the right one.
Opposition amendment (a) would require the Secretary of State to define contamination in regulations. We have concluded that that would not be helpful. As the hon. Member for Burnley suggested, contamination is hard to define precisely. It is a term for the scientific community to define, both generally in terms of the latest thinking and in relation to specific cases. A fixed definition might cause more problems than it solved. For example, levels of background natural "contamination" have yet to be established in many areas. A statutory definition might quickly become out of date.
Amendment (b) would require regulations to specify the types of investigation to be used to identify land as contaminating other land and water, causing no damage in its present condition, or suitable for development or other use.
In our view, it would be hazardous to create any rigid framework for the classification of sites such as the Opposition propose in the amendment. It is likely to be impossible to prove scientifically that a site is causing no damage in its present condition. The idea that a site is established as suitable for development or other use takes us back to the concept of "multifunctionality"—sites judged suitable for any use. I remind the hon. Member for Burnley that that idea was rejected by the Select Committee. Assessment of an individual site has to take into account many factors, including very detailed


consideration of specific uses. In any case, a one-off survey would not be sufficient, as subsequent uses of land might alter the classification.
The object of the registers is to draw together information on the possibility of contamination. They cannot, in themselves, include judgments on actual contamination at sites or on their development potential. We have given that careful consideration. The people compiling registers would be able to pass such judgments only if they had full and up-to-date survey details on every site.
Registers will, of course, reveal a need for investigation of particular sites. I accept that that will require knowledge of the history of the site, the nature of the possible contamination, and the current or proposed use of the land. Elsewhere in the Bill we are strengthening provisions for dealing with sites that represent a risk to human health or to the environment. For example, there are clauses on monitoring of closed landfills and on statutory nuisance. The latter places a duty on local authorities to inspect their areas to detect any accumulation or deposit that is prejudicial to health.
The amendment also raises the question of the Government laying down methods of investigation in regulations. That would be impracticable and inappropriate. We shall certainly provide information and guidance to authorities, but techniques in this area are constantly changing and their selection has to be based on site-specific conditions such as soil types, combinations of contaminants and hydrogeology. Site investigations need to be carefully designed in terms of both information obtained and use of resources.
Amendment (c) would provide for Government support for local authorities' investigations, with costs recoverable in some cases by charges on the land concerned. In our view those cost recovery measures are neither workable nor necessary. This is a point for the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I agree with most of what he said, but in one instance his comments ran counter to the principle of "the polluter pays". In bringing contaminated land back into use—back into the market place—the person who will enjoy the profits from the development should pay for the site investigations. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that.
If those who have contaminated the site in the past can be traced—I am hopeful that they can be in most cases—they should be made to pay. We shall encounter some difficulties with those who are impossible to trace, but if ever there was a case for the derelict land grant, this is it. I accept that not only is it the most successful Government grant in terms of leverage but it is the most widely appreciated, particularly in industrial areas that have become derelict as a result of the change in the industrial and economic pattern.

Mr. Pike: The Minister referred to multifunctionality. He is right to say that the Select Committee recognised that to deal with contamination in that way would probably involve unrealistic costs that could not be justified or met. Can he give an assurance that the register, which will be maintained in accordance with the amendment carried in the other place, will show that the contamination has been dealt with only to a certain

standard? He referred to a chief executive in a rural district remembering what has happened, and I am sure that he will understand that in 20 or 30 years people may want to develop land for a different use only to find that the land may not be suitable because the contamination has not been dealt with to the necessary level. Will he give an assurance that that will be maintained on record?

Mr. Trippier: That sounds like a perfectly sensible suggestion. I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall look at that. I can say now that I shall look at it favourably. There would then be a consistency between that and other public registers about which we talked a great deal in Committee. Under part I of the Bill, which deals with improving public access to environmental information, incredible detail must be shown on a register under the integrated pollution control. I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I wrap all that up with the consultations that we are now conducting with the local authority associations. I do not think that anyone should be so arrogant as to suggest that we have all the answers in this regard. We do not. We have a great deal to learn. The process of consultation will be carried through. It will involve not only the local authority associations but the many district authorities. I am concerned principally with district authorities that have had particular problems in the past and with those that have proved that they can deal successfully with the new forms of technology that can cleanse land. Another neighbouring authority to Burnley and Rossendale and Darwen is Blackburn. In evidence given to the Select Committee that authority was cited as a superb example of what can be done.
I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. Walley: We have no doubt about the importance of derelict land grants and how, where they have been made available, they have transformed large areas of derelict land.
I take on board the Minister's comments that some of our amendments may constrict rather than allow us to keep abreast of the latest developments in technology. I rather suspect that the main thrust of his comments is that provided there is adequate consultation with local authorities, and that it takes place on the widest basis possible, the issues that we have discussed in terms of methodology and how priorities must be established to deal with contaminated land, including the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), will be returned to time and again. I am sure that, in the full process of that consultation, the issue of finance will be returned to time and again and I suspect that we shall have to press for more finance to be made available to local authorities to deal with the polluter-pays principle. We accept that there is a legacy of contaminated land, but in some cases there will not be a polluter who is directly responsible for the contamination.
On the basis of the assurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 292 agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New clause

PUBLIC REGISTERS RELATING TO DEPOSITS IN THE SEA AND INCINERATION AT SEA

Lords amendment: No. 295, after clause 133, insert the following new Clause—

(". In Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, for section 14 (registers of licences) there shall be substituted the following section—

Duty of licensing authority to keep public registers of information

14.—(1) It shall be the duty of each licensing authority, as respects licences for which it is the licensing authority, to maintain, in accordance with regulations, a register containing prescribed particulars of or relating to—
(a) applications for licences made to that authority;
(b) the licences issued by that authority;
(c) variations of licences effected by that authority;
(d) revocations of licences effected by that authority;
(e) convictions for any offences under section 9 above;
(f) information obtained or furnished in pursuance of section 8(3), (4) or (5) above;
(g) the occasions on which either of the Ministers has carried out any operation under section 10 above; and
(h) such other matters relating to operations for which licences are needed under this Part of this Act as may be prescribed.

(2) No information shall be included in any register which in the opinion of either of the Ministers is such that its disclosure on the register—
(a) would be contrary to the interests of national security, or
(b) would prejudice to an unreasonable degree some person's commercial interests.

(3) Information excluded from a register by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall be treated as ceasing to prejudice a person's commercial interests at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the Minister made his decision under that subsection; but, on the application of any person to whom it relates, the Minister shall decide whether the information should be included or continue to be excluded from the register.

(4) Where information of any description is excluded from a register by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above, a statement shall be entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.

(5) It shall be the duty of each licensing authority—
(a) to secure that the register maintained by the authority under this section is available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public free of charge; and
(b) to afford to members of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(6) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.

(7) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations.

(8) Either of the Ministers may exercise any power to make regulations under this section and any such power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. David Curry.]

Ms. Walley: Given what has been said about the importance of access to information, we welcome the public register and the access to information about sea

dumping. We have some concern about commercial confidentiality, albeit with the proviso that there is a four-year limit on the amount of time that must elapse before the information can be made public.
We are somewhat concerned about the philosophy behind the new clause. The Lords amendment causes us much concern, especially as the 13th sea dumping convention is taking place in London this week. I do not want to miss this opportunity to press the Minister further. I tabled a question on 26 October, asking for assurances that the Government favour a global ban on industrial waste dumping at sea. Will the Minister assure us that he is backing the demand of the Nordic countries and that he is concerned to ensure an end to sea dumping? Will he give a firm statement on the view that the Government have taken?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the new clause, but we are getting near to the controversial bit of the Bill—the next new clause is on dog registration, which we debated yesterday and will no doubt return to tomorrow.
Will the new clause cover what is probably the most severe allegation made against the Government's environmental policy—their policy on marine pollution? The Minister will know—I have read the exchanges between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) in Committee—that there is a commonly held view, backed by plenty of evidence, that our practice on dumping at sea is among the worst in western Europe.
Will the register of information allow the public to know accurately, and on a regularly updated basis, the amount of sewage and toxic waste being dumped and the amount of chemicals incinerated? The Minister and his colleagues have had to try to explain the range of dumping, but it has been impossible for them to defend it. They said that they would ban the dumping of certain types of waste at sea, yet they gave exemptions to about 70 per cent. of the practices in question. The register is good only if it provides information by which people can decide whether the Government, as the relevant authority, and the other authorities are dealing with what is probably the worst aspect of our pollution practice.
If the Minister is satisfied that the register will do that, at least some ammunition—which may perhaps be used against him—will be available to the public. I hope that he realises that, so far, the pressure that has been applied by private and public agencies has not achieved a sufficient change in policy to give us an environment record of which we can be proud. I hope that he can give some significant assurances.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I assure the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (M r. Hughes) that, although he may want much ammunition, the target will become smaller.
I shall briefly list the items that are dumped at sea and the termination dates that we have agreed for them. Incineration will finish at the end of this year. Incineration is not carried out in British waters; the only incineration site is in Dutch waters, but we no longer practise it. Only two industrial liquid wastes will be dumped by 1992, because of the major industrial and employment implications. We have made it clear that the dumping of those wastes must end by early 1993, and that that date will not be extended.
The dumping of power station fly ash will finish at the end of 1992. The dumping of colliery stone occurs on beaches in the north-east in particular. I recently announced that we had given British Coal a period within which it had to make an application for continued disposal and prove that there was no valid alternative disposal. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will be aware that the implications for the future of colleries must be considered. Sewage sludge will end by 1998, and the only dumping that will be practised by almost all countries is dredged spoil. No countries have plans to end that.
The timetable shows that there will be precious little dumping. Our objective remains clear: where there is a valid alternative, we shall take it and insist on it being observed.
We have no contentious issues to raise at the dumping convention, as we do not practise the dumping that it is seeking to ban. The United Kingdom is exploring with the Nordic countries the proposals for the phasing out of industrial waste. I reassure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that we take this matter very seriously. Our policy is the absolute minimisation of the dumping of industrial waste at sea. We shall continue to pursue that, but as soon as a viable alternative comes forward, we shall insist that it is followed.

Ms. Walley: Will the Minister say, yes or no, whether he will support a global ban on dumping at the convention that is taking place in London this week?

Mr. Curry: We are exploring with the member states at the convention precisely what they are seeking, and precisely the terms and the scientific basis on which the views are being stated. The United Kingdom does not practise the dumping of the products that are being discussed.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Subsequent Lords amendments and amendments to Lords amendments agreed to.

Manuscript amendment to Title agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill; That Mr. Boswell, Mr. Gould, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Trippier be members of the Committee; That three be the quorum; That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Trippier]

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this is a debatable motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows from the expression on my face that it is a debatable motion.

Mr. Hughes: I read that in your face, Madam Deputy Speaker. This point has been made by me and my colleagues at the same stage in earlier Bills. I hope that, sooner rather than later, the House will change the practice so that the famous Committee, which goes off and meets in a huddle behind your chair in what appears to be a broom cupboard and then emerges a couple of minutes later having, as if by magic, produced reasons for disagreeing with the Lords in certain amendments, can be more widely representative of the parties in the House. If it is possible for this change to be undertaken by Ministers or by Whips, it would be most welcome not only to me and to my colleagues, but to hon. Members of other parties who share my concern.
I want to place on record the fact that there were reports in the press last night and this morning that, if the other place were to stand firm tomorrow in its view on any of the matters on which we disagreed with the Lords amendments yesterday, there would be a crisis which would result in the Bill being lost. That is not true. In reality, if the Lords decided to reaffirm their position on, for example, the registration of dogs, the matter would come back to this House. Even if we had to sit a little late tomorrow night, there would be plenty of time for the constitutional process——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to inform the House of what appears in the press. Although this Chair has many responsibilities, it has none for what appears in the media. Is this a point of order for the Chair, or is the hon. Gentleman debating the motion?

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to the conclusion of my speech on the motion. The motion should be accompanied by a clear view from this House that there is no problem if the House of Lords decides to stand firm because the matter can come back to this place. We have time to debate it and decide whether to agree with the Lords. If the Lords want to stand firm, they should be encouraged to do so. I encourage them to stand as firm as they can. We are happy to support them tomorrow, and we may be able to get an extra four people here to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Schools (Newham)

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I present a petition signed by more than 1,000 residents and electors of the dockland area of the borough of Newham, south of Newham way. It is an area of rapidly increasing population and of moderately sized homes which are either owner-occupied or rented from the council or from housing associations. The primary schools are over-full and there are no secondary schools.
Despite Government plans for considerable development in the area, no funds have been earmarked for a secondary school by the Department of Education and Science. Indeed, a recent decision by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to retain 800 places in an opt-out school in the north of the borough has prejudiced the borough plan for the construction of such secondary schools on designated sites south of Newham way.
The petition reads:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that sufficient resources are provided now for extension to and new building of primary schools and for the construction of two new secondary schools for pupils living in that part of the Borough of Newham south of the Newham Way, and further pray that the secondary schools incorporate sufficient community provision to serve the planned increase in population without prejudice to the needs of, or services to, pupils or the whole community in the remainder of the Borough and that these necessary schemes by completed without capital financial liability to its citizens.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Parking Tickets

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: It is pleasant to be introducing an Adjournment debate at such an early hour because, as the House knows, it gives us a rather more generous allocation of time in which to pursue cases involving justice. This is the third occasion on which I have had such good fortune. On the other two, a certain amount of progress was made as a consequence of the extra time and I hope that, when I eventually conclude my speech, the Minister's response will prove acceptable to my hon. Friends and to me.
The case that I shall raise tonight concerns the serious nuisance caused to one of my constituents and his family and I therefore feel entirely justified in raising it. The implications of the case are of considerable and wade relevance—rather wider than a glance at the Order Paper would suggest—as I shall show in developing my argument.
I am concerned about the outrageous and distressing experience of a decent man and his family and about a degree of official incompetence which would have been regarded as unimaginable—even in London—a decade ago, and which remain astonishing and unacceptable in South Yorkshire today. I have no hesitation in presenting this case tonight and in drawing certain wholly reasonable conclusions from it. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to comment upon those conclusions as well as offering the answers that I shall invite him to give towards the end of my speech. It is also important that the Minister should make it very clear that my constituent is, and should be, free from any blame and that he is the entirely innocent victim of muddle and incompetence who deserves a full apology and redress. He is a victim not only of public incompetence but of the criminal and irresponsible action of another person.
My constituent is an elderly man in his late 60s. He lives quietly at Turner close, Rawmarsh and has a happy family life. His bungalow forms part of one of Rotherham council's splendid housing schemes for the elderly, within a neat, cared-for and caring community.
Mr. Tom Chedgzoy and his wife have led good and responsible lives. They have brought up a family of six sons, five of whom survive, and theirs is a close-knit, locally centred family. There are 12 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren and a fourth great-grandchild is due soon. Mr. Chedgzoy was originally an engineer. During the war, he served as a petty officer in the Royal Navy and thereafter he developed his own small business. When Mr. Chedgzoy retired, he settled down to live a more relaxed life with his wife in his happy community and in close proximity to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The Chedgzoys had looked forward to a happy and contented retirement with the occasional clay out fishing and the occasional day's holiday at the seaside—a point that is relevant, as my remarks will show.
Mr. and Mrs. Chedgzoy have lived a quiet and contented life during the 47 years for which they have been married. It is relevant for me to point that out to show that they are good people—ordinary decent people. There are many such people in our constituencies and they form the essential spine of our national fabric. They may not have


made the headlines; they may not have made millions. But this country owes a great deal to people such aS Mr. and Mrs. Chedgzoy and their families.
I have mentioned the different generations to show that Mr. and Mrs. Chedgzoy, their five sons and their grandchildren—their great-grandchildren are not yet old enough to uphold the splendid family tradition—have never been in trouble with the police. Yet in this year of grace, they have been caused distress, justified anger, severe anxiety and considerable inconvenience.
My attention was drawn to the problem in September. Mr. Chedgzoy had never written to his Member of Parliament before; he had never really needed to. He wrote to me after taking a great deal of trouble to help himself, as I shall show.
In the spring, Mr. Chedgzoy received a registered letter containing a parking ticket. Apparently, he had committed a parking offence in London. He found that astonishing. A few weeks later, he was given further ground for astonishment when yet another parking ticket arrived.
Mr. Chedgzoy contacted the authorities to explain that he had not committed the offence. He wrote to Westminster city council and returned to it the correspondence that he had received, stating that there must have been an error as neither he nor his car had been in London on the dates mentioned. In fact, Mr. Chedgzoy has the good fortune not to have visited London since around 1955–35 years ago. Certainly his vehicle was not involved in the offence because, on those dates, his vehicle was by his bungalow in Rawmarsh. The vehicle carries the registration number F997 WUY, but it is a Maestro, whereas the vehicle recorded in connection with the offence was a large blue Rover.
Following his letter, Mr. Chedgzoy received nothing from the authorities, except a card of acknowledgement stating that the information that he had sent was receiving attention.
Then came another bolt from the blue. Yet another registered letter arrived at Mr. Chedgzoy's address, virtually accusing him of committing yet another parking offence. At that point, Mr. Chedgzoy sought the help of the citizens' advice bureau in Rotherham. He made two visits to the Rotherham CAB office. There, he was given the good advice that he should set the matter down in writing and send the information to Westminster council and to the police. He did that. The CAB also suggested that he should write to the driver and vehicle licensing centre in Swansea. Mr. Chedgzoy acted on that advice and the centre replied informing him that F997 WUY was, indeed, his registration number and no one else's. The centre suggested that he return the notices to the authorities responsible with an explanation. Of course, he had already done that.
Then Mr. Chedgzoy received yet another registered letter, which caused him great inconvenience, for the third time. As I said, he has a bungalow near Skegness. He is an elderly, decent and responsible man and, on each occasion, he returned from holiday to deal with the registered letters that he received. For the third time, then, a few days' break was spoilt by those astonishing developments.
At this point the position had become intolerable. Mr. Chedgzoy wrote to me, and I received his letter on 25

September. I immediately wrote to the chief executive of Westminster city council. I made a mistake with the address, but I shall refer to that later. I also wrote to the Home Office and to our own South Yorkshire police authority. I found the situation incredible, and I did not wish to see our police officers placed in a position that they would find objectionable were they to receive relevant information and requests from their colleagues in London. I also contacted the magistrates court in Rotherham, because Mr. Chedgzoy had been informed that the Rotherham court had inevitably been involved: following the alleged offences, he had been awarded a fine for failing to pay the parking charge in London.
Mr. Chedgzoy had to trail to the office of the Rotherham magistrates court, where he was kindly received. I am grateful that the staff there were able to give him reassuring advice and to assist him to complete a statement that served as a disclaimer and was then sent on to Westminster. The South Yorkshire police have also sought to assist him, and an officer called on him to offer reassurance and to say that the South Yorkshire police were seeking to be helpful. I was extremely grateful for that action. At least we now know that the Metropolitan police have been informed of the rectitude of Mr. Chedgzoy's position.
I then received the first of two letters from, not the chief executive but the managing director of Westminster city council. I am not sure that I like that title; I do not regard a local authority as a business. However, given the support that has been lavished on that council by an admiring Government, I suppose that if current generosity is maintained—perhaps in the rate support grant that we imminently expect—it will be able to act like a business, because it will be declaring a dividend rather than collecting any poll tax.
That may sound a little far-fetched, but the fact remains that if my local authority—which is obviously more efficient than the city of Westminster—had received the same level of support this year as has Westminster city council, we should not have had to face rate capping because we should not have had to levy a poll tax. Indeed, Mr. Chedgzoy and I—and every other citizen in the Rotherham metropolitan borough—would have qualified to receive a payment in excess of £100 in lieu of any demand for poll tax. Instead, we have been starved of resources and poll tax-capped as well. We have had to watch Westminster city council receive the basic standard spending grant of 459 per cent. more per head than we have. The same argument applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) as Doncaster has had a similar experience. Several of my hon. Friends will be aware of that. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in the Chamber, and he knows that what I have said about our local position is correct.
Not content with robbing Yorkshire in the most astonishing way over this year's local government spending, Westminster city council wants to take money from disabled and elderly pensioners such as Mr. Chedgzoy.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I cannot understand why Westminster council, having made a mistake, did not seek to rectify it immediately. When one punches up a vehicle registration number, it takes about 10 seconds for the name and address of the owner to come up on the police computer. In addition to the registration


number of the vehicle, it shows the vehicle model. A parking ticket, therefore, also shows the model. There is obviously a discrepancy in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), but no one in the efficient Westminster authority managed to pick that up and save this elderly gentleman some aggro.

Mr. Hardy: Yes, that is the case. I have spoken to police officers in my area who are astonished and bemused by my constituent's experience. I can confidently say that if a large blue Rover car was repeatedly parked in my constituency, and the police and the local authority had been informed that the registration number had been allocated to someone else, the police would have checked up. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, the police could have found that information within 10 seconds.
Throughout the months of my constituent's experience, no one had done that. The result is that he has received a succession of registered letters bearing the unfortunate news that he has been committing offences. I wonder whether it is an exercise by the local authority. Having robbed South Yorkshire in rate support grant, Westminster council now aims to make money from our people as individuals. I do not believe that such an experience could be repeated in my constituency or in the constituencies of any of my hon. Friends present in the Chamber tonight.
In his first letter, the managing director of Westminster wrote to ask me whether I could provide the relevant references so that the matter could be considered. He offered an assurance that the matter would not be referred to the court in Rotherham. I provided a reference for the managing director. However, Mr. Chedgzoy had written to Westminster council many weeks before telling it about the position. While the card of acknowledgement had been received, no one had taken any notice, even though someone was fraudulently and probably frequently displaying the wrong number plate in Westminster. That is serious, partly because my constituent's complaint and the information were obviously unheeded. However, that is not unusual. The same authority wrote to me to say that I had made no payments on my poll tax when I had made my payments. I do not like to pay the poll tax, but I certainly do not like paying it to an authority that then tells me that I have not paid it. When Mr. Chedgzoy contacted me about Westminster's deficiencies, his request for help did not fall on infertile ground.
The managing director of Westminster had assured me that the matter would not be referred to the Rotherham court, but it had already been referred there. That was bound to happen because Mr. Chedgzoy had been fined in London, but lives in Rotherham. Therefore, he was placed in the ignominious position of having to report to the police court. As I have already said, no one from Mr. Chedgzoy's family, not one of his sons or his grandchildren, has had such an experience. My constituent did not like that.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: This is a very interesting story, particularly when we consider that Westminster council was held up as an example of an efficient council during the local council elections a few months ago. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to what this exercise will cost the ratepayers of Westminster?

Mr. Hardy: It is bound to cost the ratepayers of Westminster a great deal. As I develop my speech, my hon. Friend will hear me state that I suspect that the cost involved could be even greater than he might imagine at the moment.
I received a leaflet through my letter box in London the other day stating that Westminster council is
the best guarantee of a low community charge and efficient local services.
We know that the council has a low community charge, but it also lacks efficient local services if the experience of that pensioner in my constituency is anything to go by.

Mr. Redmond: I am at a loss to understand why the managing director did not take the appropriate steps to rectify the matter when he first received a letter from ray hon. Friend's constituent. Given that the council has acted so inefficiently and has obviously cost the poll tax payers of Westminster a great deal of money because of that inefficiency, should not the managing director resign and, before he resigns, send a letter of apology to my hon. Friend's constituent and rectify the distress, worry and anxiety caused to my hon. Friend's constituent out of his own pocket instead of it being paid for by the poll tax payers in Westminster?

Mr. Hardy: I do not share my hon. Friend's last sentiment. I shall refer to a second letter from the managing director in a moment and my hon. Friend will understand then that I am responding to his intervention.
I called to see Mr. Chedgzoy at his home two or three weeks ago. I was astonished to learn that despite my representations, he had been given cause for further and infuriating distress because the previous day a registered letter had arrived informing him that he had committed yet another parking offence. I was very angry about that because I had already pursued the matter. I had assumed that that might have led to some proper and intelligent consideration. Mr. Chedgzoy acted properly and responsibly throughout. He acted on the advice of the citizens advice bureau. The local police had certainly taken helpful action, yet the grinding wheels of official incompetence had produced yet another grievous error.
A few moments after I arrived at Mr. Chedgzoy's home, the local community constable, PC Greatorex, called to add a word of assurance that the South Yorkshire police were seeking to be helpful. Mr. Greatorex, the present community constable in Park Gate and Rawmarsh, like his splendid predecessor PC Armstrong, maintained his duties in the most commendable way. Mr. Greatorex called to give an assurance to that elderly couple that they should not have cause for anxiety. I suspect that Mr. Greatorex was almost as cross as I was to learn that yet another ticket had arrived the previous day.
I then made a suggestion that did not wholly delight Mrs. Chedgzoy, for I said that it might be best in future to put all those things in the basket, and that, one day, Mr. Greatorex, as the community constable, could come around and arrest Mr. Chedgzoy. I said that I hoped that he would make sure that that was in my presence and that I would then accompany Mr. Greatorex and Mr. Chedgzoy to the police station, where I could vouch for him. The result would have been that a substantial suit for wrongful arrest would follow. However, Mrs. Chedgzoy was somewhat put out by the suggestion and took the view


that she was not going to have her husband arrested after 47 years of decent, good married life. I resisted the temptation to press the suggestion further.
However, as I said, I received a second letter from the managing director of Westminster council. It also causes me some concern. He said:
In fairness to the city Council,"—
obviously, I wish to be fair to the city council; the Government have been more than fair to the city council and to its parking enforcement contractors—
the fraudulent and illegal use of false number plates is not something of which we could have been aware.
Had that been said after the first offence, the remark would have been reasonable. After the second offence, it might have been forgivable, but after the months since Mr. Chedgzoy mentioned the offence, it was not really a justified comment. The managing director went on to say:
I am sure you would agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for the City Council to become involved in what has now shown itself to be a crime.
Someone surely must be concerned that an individual is parking his car in Westminster, using my constituent's number plates, getting my constituent into trouble, and evading responsibility for his actions.

Mr. Redmond: I am sure that we shall get from the Minister a satisfactory explanation of why the parking ticket was sent to my hon. Friend's constituent. The traffic warden who looked at the registration plate would also have checked the tax disc. The registration number on the disc would have been different from that on the number plate. That would not be possible unless the owner altered both things. I should hardly think that he would fork out for a tax disc. Will my hon. Friend comment on that point?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is quite right. I find the matter completely incredible, and so do my constituents. The managing director went on to state:
We must leave the various police forces involved to apprehend the owner of the bogus F997 WUY".
I should have agreed with him if he had said that months ago, but at least we can be relieved that he says:
I am copying this letter to Superintendent Hotson at the Paddington Green Police Station, to whom I have already spoken, so that his officers are alert to the problem.
Splendid. Well done. What a pity that that action was not taken a long time ago.
It may sound as if I am extremely critical of the owner of the large blue Rover, but those of us who do not spend all our time in London have considerable sympathy for the people who have to travel round this city. The owner of the large blue Rover may have reached his wits' end and found that the various bus routes and underground lines that he would have to use to reach Westminster are unreliable and unpleasant, as well as expensive.
Last week I had to attend a meeting in Farringdon of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which should be a straightforward underground trip on the Circle line from Westminster. However, on that occasion, as on the two previous occasions when I have had to travel to the same place, I was unable to complete my journey. Those of us who have to travel to King's Cross station to get a train when we leave this city should be given a medal every time we use the Victoria line. Our wives who have to meet our trains should get them as well because we frequently miss our trains as that line is so

unsatisfactory. Although the owner of the large blue Rover bearing the fraudulent number plates may well have acted with a sense of despair, he should have realised that he was collecting parking tickets, but that a pensioner in my constituency was receiving them.
I have spoken at length to my local police force to find out what happened. It might interest the Minister if I gave him some figures. If the Metropolitan police sent information to the South Yorkshire police in Rotherham, to Chief Superintendent Wain or to Superintendent Sellars and their colleagues, telling them that a car with false number plates was parked in any part of the C2 division, which serves my constituency, or in C3 division, which serves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, our police would be on to that information with remarkable speed. However, similar speed has not been shown in this case.
I am not making any false claims because, despite the tight resources and the serious economic problems facing my area, and although we have had 2,525 crimes in the C2 division of the South Yorkshire police this year, our detection rate is running at 61·86 per cent. I would wager that the Minister would not care to provide the figures for the Metropolitan police detection rate when he replies to the debate. Of course, he could reduce the figure for offences in London by the number that my constituent is supposed to have committed, which makes me wonder how reliable the figures are.
There is a further cause for concern. If the owner of the large blue Rover with fraudulent number plates has got away with this offence since the spring, I wonder how many more people have tumbled to the fact that all they need to do is to find out the registration on the number plates of pensioners from, say, Pontefract, Doncaster, Rother Valley, Penistone or Barnsley, who do not come to London frequently. They can then continue in their criminal irresponsibility. It is time that the police were asked to do their utmost to catch someone who is involved in doing that, because it can cause a great deal of distress to perfectly decent people, as in this case.
I wonder whether this case is unique. The other day, before I had Mr. and Mrs. Chedgzoy's permission to raise their case and to mention their name—I have never used a constituent's name in public without first securing permission—a journalist asked me their name and address and I said that I was extremely sorry, but that until I had seen Mr. and Mrs. Chedgzoy I could not give it. The journalist said that he thought that he knew of the case anyway. I said, "I am surprised if you do, but tell me." He said that on the previous evening he had been having a drink with a solicitor friend, who had said, "I think that I am acting for Mr. Hardy's constituents," but he was not. Mr. Chedgzoy did not employ a solicitor. I respect that journalist's confidence and I shall not reveal my sources, but it seems that there is another case involving defective number plates. Someone else telephoned me the other day to tell me that her husband had had a similar experience.
I wonder whether some of the wide boys of London have worked out a marvellous dodge to save their fares on public transport and evade paying to park their motor vehicles. Perhaps the Minister has an opportunity to nip a crime in the bud and thus assist the Metropolitan police in reducing the crime figures before we have a general election. Certainly in my constituency we should love to


fight an election on law and order. That also goes for the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are here this evening.
The Government bear a heavy responsibility in the matter. In the past year or two I have noticed a number of cases in which letters from my constituents to Government Departments have gone astray. I have also noticed that several Departments take a long time to give a reply, let alone a satisfactory one. When I wrote to the Home Office Minister on 25 September giving the details of the case, I expected to receive a rather swifter response than I did. After all, I was telling the Minister about an injustice—a case in which great distress had been caused to an elderly person, someone had acted fraudulently and that elderly person had been caused a great deal of inconvenience. That elderly person has a splendid record and he deserves a great deal better. I still have not had a reply from the Home Office but I look forward to hearing from the Minister this evening.
Mr. Chedgzoy is certainly not a yuppie. He is an ordinary, decent south Yorkshire man who has never caused any problems. He has paid his way, paid his taxes, earned his living and brought up his family decently. He has never been in any trouble. He certainly does not have the yuppie values. Indeed, the man with the large blue Rover is probably more likely to be a yuppie than Mr. Chedgzoy. However, the fact remains that there has been profound injustice and appalling incompetence. The Chedgzoy case shows that things are simply not good enough. I hope that the Minister will make his innocence clear and express a real regret for the experience that Mr. Chedgzoy suffered and the distress that he was caused.
The Minister should also advise Westminster city council of the case. Here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, who suggested that Mr. Phillips, the managing director, should pay out of his own pocket. My hon. Friend would never allow an officer to bear responsibility for something that went wrong in Doncaster, although he probably would not allow anything to go wrong in Doncaster on this scale. My hon. Friend would accept that the authority appointed the man and should pay the compensation. I firmly believe that that is appropriate.
Mr. Chedgzoy has had three holidays spoilt. He had to travel to Rotherham. He is disabled. He and his wife have been caused so much distress that earlier this year one of their sons offered to pay the charges and the fines and have done with the matter because he observed the sadness that it was causing to the family. He did not want his parents to have to put up with any more aggravation or horror. The Minister would be entirely justified in telling the council that it should do much more than offer the personal apology that the managing director, Mr. Phillips, offered.
I am sure that Mr. Chedgzoy will accept Mr. Phillips's apology, but the council has a greater obligation. I hope that the council will not stuff any more silly leaflets through my letter box proclaiming that it operates an efficient local service when the Chedgzoy case demonstrates clearly that there is a great deal of inefficiency and incompetence in the council, which has created the sadness that I was happy to raise tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I was sorry to learn of the problems encountered by the constituent of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I can appreciate that this must have been a distressing series of experiences for him. I can understand why the hon. Member has taken the trouble to raise the subject this evening, and done it in a typically thorough, lucid and wide-ranging way.
I have had inquiries made with the Metropolitan police, the South Yorkshire police, Westminster city council, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to try to determine how this upsetting series of events occurred. I hope that I will be able to offer some illumination to the hon. Member and his constituent.
It may be useful if I first explain briefly the mechanics of the fixed penalty system. After a fixed penalty notice, or parking ticket, is issued, the recipient has 28 days initially in which to pay or, if he disputes the offence, to request a court hearing. If no payment is received, the police find out who is the registered keeper of the vehicle from the records at DVLA. They then send a "notice to owner" to that person.
A person who receives a "notice to owner" can pay the penalty, request a court hearing or complete the statutory statement in the notice that he was not the owner of the vehicle and provide any information he has about who did own it if he has recently bought or sold it. If no reply is received to the "notice to owner", the penalty is automatically increased by 50 per cent. and registered as a fine for enforcement by the local magistrates court. The court may use all its normal powers to enforce payment of the fine.
These procedures seem to have been properly followed in Mr. Chedgzoy's case, although the situation is complicated. I was trying to follow the hon. Member's speech closely, but it did not shed light on the complication that Mr. Chedgzoy had received penalty notices both from the Metropolitan police and from the Westminster city council.
I know that a fixed penalty was issued by the police to a car bearing the same number as his vehicle. No payment was received. The police established that that number was registered to Mr. Chedgzoy. They issued a "notice to owner" but again no reply was received. I accept, although I am not certain of this because it is the dates that matter, that Mr. Chedgzoy may have already been in communication with the Westminster city council. The Metropolitan police, for whom I am able to speak in this place, registered the penalty as a fine with Mr. Chedgzoy's local court.
The court then sought to enforce payment of the fine. At this stage, Mr. Chedgzoy exercised his right to make a statutory declaration that he had no knowledge of the fixed penalty in question—the one in question here being the one from the Metropolitan police. This had the effect of cancelling the fine, for such a declaration is the safeguard provided for causes such as these.
The police have now managed to establish what lay behind the events. It appears that another vehicle carries the same number as Mr. Chedgzoy's car and has parked illegally. Therefore, it should have been the one to bear the fine. The Metropolitan police have traced the other vehicle and its driver. The vehicle, which has a registration number differing by only one number from Mr.


Chedgzoy's car, was involved in an accident in early part of the year. A garage undertaking repairs replaced the front index plate but made an error on one digit, with the result that the front plate bore the registration number allocated to Mr. Chedgzoy's car. The driver did not notice the mistake until it was pointed out by police; he is now rectifying it.

Mr. Hardy: I am fascinated by the information, but I have a question. Did the owner of the car with a misplaced digit on its number plate receive parking tickets that were addressed to my constituent, or did he not notice that he had been receiving parking tickets for his inaccurately digited number plate since March or April this year? I find that an incredible explanation.

Mr. Lloyd: As I understand it, he had paid a number of parking tickets, but not all the tickets that had been issued on his car. The police tell me that they could not investigate sooner because they had no reason to think that anything was amiss until Mr. Chedgzoy wrote to them at the end of September and subsequently provided full details earlier this month.

Mr. Redmond: When a parking ticket is made out, it is normal practice for the traffic warden or whoever makes it out to check that the vehicle excise disc is valid. That being so, the number on the excise disc would have been different from the number on the plate, so someone slipped up badly, causing a lot of pain and grief to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
This is not good enough. The Minister has been pouring out all this information in my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate and seemingly everything is suddenly light and clear, but month after month this sort of incompetence has caused a hell of a lot of grief to an old lady and gentleman.

Mr. Lloyd: It has indeed caused a lot of grief, as the hon. Member for Wentworth has explained. I am explaining that the Metropolitan police did not know that there was a problem of this nature until September. Certainly there should have been a check to determine whether the vehicle excise licence number and the number on the front plate matched. There was a difference of one digit, and being a fair-minded man, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will understand how a one digit difference might not have been noticed.

Mr. Lofthouse: Of course mistakes can be made, but did both front and rear plates need to be replaced?

Mr. Lloyd: The front and back plates differed by one digit——

Mr. Hardy: Incredible.

Mr. Lloyd: No doubt the hon. Gentleman inspects his own front and rear number plates at regular intervals, but many people do not. Being a fair-minded man, he will understand that drivers may not always check, and even if they did they might not notice a difference of one digit. Perhaps I do the hon. Gentleman an injustice; perhaps he is fair-minded but far more observant than many of the rest of us.

Mr. Hardy: I would not claim to be so observant. I might well fail to notice a one-digit difference between the plates, but I am sure that, if I failed to notice it over a period of seven months, a member of my family would have noticed it. I find the whole thing incredible. I should make it clear, however, that Mr. Chedgzoy sought to inform the authorities before September. He telephoned more than once and was assured that he should not worry: it would all be sorted out. Plainly, it was not. That suggests that in future people should rely less on the telephone and more on correspondence.

Mr. Lloyd: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman but I was not sure from his account exactly to whom Mr. Chedgzoy made his representations. Were they made to Westminster city council, or were they made also to the local police? I am merely reporting that the Metropolitan police, who issued only one of the tickets, did not know until the date that I gave, after which they made inquiries and discovered that the situation was as I have described it. I understand that only one fixed penalty was issued by the police in respect of the vehicle in question and that it was not paid. As I said earlier, it appears that some fines were paid in respect of the offending vehicle.
The other correspondence received by Mr. Chedgzoy concerned unpaid excess charge notices for overstaying at parking meters, issued by Westminster city council. I am informed by the council that those notices have now been cancelled, as the hon. Member for Wentworth said, and that it has written to Mr. Chedgzoy telling him so and expressing regret for any distress that he may have suffered.
The hon. Member for Wentworth will understand that I cannot speak for a local authority—not even Westminster city council—or comment on the promptness and manner of Westminster city council's response to Mr. Chedgzoy's communication and to that of the hon. Gentleman. However, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks this evening to Westminster city council's attention.
The hon. Member for Wentworth suggested that Mr. Chedgzoy should receive compensation for the stress and inconvenience that he suffered. That is something for the organisations involved to consider, and no doubt they will do so when they read this debate. However, it seems clear that there was nothing improper or incorrect in the action of the police or the council, in the way that the hon. Gentleman described this evening. It is clear that Mr. Chedgzoy was the unfortunate victim of a set of circumstances beyond the control of either authority.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, and understand why he raised the case this evening. I have every sympathy with the Kafkaesque situation in which Mr. Chedgzoy found himself, and I hope that he will gain some satisfaction from knowing that the reasons why it arose have now been discovered by the Metropolitan police. They will be writing to Mr. Chedgzoy with a full explanation and to express their regret. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth for raising the matter this evening, so that I could put before him and the House all the information that I have.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to letters that he wrote to the Home Office. This is the earliest opportunity that I have had to hear about the background and information surrounding the case and to respond to the hon. Gentleman. When a right hon. or hon. Member


writes to the Home Office about a problem as unhappy and mysterious as the one described tonight, we always want to respond as soon as we have an explanation to offer. Having given the hon. Gentleman an explanation, I repeat my regret and express again my sympathy for Mr. Chedgzoy, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that his comments and my response this evening will be placed before both the Metropolitan police and Westminster city council.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the Minister, who has displayed his traditional courtesy. I note that he does not feel that there has been any impropriety or incompetence on the part of the authorities. All I can say is that I certainly hope that no South Yorkshire authority ever displays the degree of accomplished competence that has been shown in this case. Until the London authorities reach the standard maintained in South Yorkshire, people like Mr. and Mrs. Chedgzoy would be well advised to wait another 35 years before setting foot in London again.

Orders of the Day — Special Constables

Mr. James Pawsey: The latest crime figures, announced two or three weeks ago, show that despite a major improvement in police funding amounting to an increase of 60 per cent. since 1979, crime continues to increase.
Each year in the Gracious Speech, reference is made to some new measure designed to stem crime, but despite a battery of initiatives ranging from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the introduction of the successful neighbourhood watch schemes, it continues to increase. I sometimes believe that the originality of my right hon. and hon. Friends' thinking is equalled only by the originality of criminals in devising further means and methods of formulating crime.
I make one suggestion to my hon. Friend. I have an idea which seems to have been somewhat neglected so fir. Perhaps it has been neglected because it is unfashionable and it may even be unpopular in certain official circles. It does not cost very much and it is certainly not high-tech. Indeed, it smacks a little of the amateur and harks back to an earlier time in our country's history. It concentrates more on men than on machines—more on informed local interest and less on the impersonal computer. It is more pavement and less Panda-oriented and motivated.
My hon. Friend will know what I am referring to because he has answered a number of my questions about special constables, who always strike me as a sensible British institution and seem to introduce a non-standard note of originality. By definition, they are volunteers—men and women who freely give up their spare time to help and protect their community—and it is my firm belief that we are much the better for their presence and their efforts. We should, however, be seeking substantially to increase their numbers and to improve their training.
I am delighted to have the support of my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) this evening. I also note that, although customarily silent, the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is affirming his interest in this genuinely interesting and important matter.
There is also a case for substantially improving the training of special constables. After all, they are an integral part of the police force and should be seen and treated as such.
As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, there are about 15,500 special constables in post. In 1974, there were 24,000. By comparison, in the past 11 years total police manpower has increased by about 24,500 to a United Kingdom total of about 126,000. Total spending on the police is now running at about £4·5 billion per annum. It might benefit the House to contrast that enormous expenditure with the cost of special constables, which is between £500,000 and £1 million. Special constables are unpaid and receive only their uniform and modest allowances.

Mr. Michael Stern: I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's permission to intervene, as he has reached one of the nubs of a complex argument. It seems to me, and to my local constabulary of


Avon and Somerset which has mentioned the matter to me on a number of occasions, that it is attempting to recruit special constables with one foot in a bucket of concrete.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, there has been a decline in the number of special constables. Unlike other areas of activity in which concerned citizens seek to influence the society in which they live and to play their part in improving it, special constables are not paid, as my hon. Friend pointed out. When a constabulary such as Avon and Somerset attempts to recruit special constables it is competing against the Territorial Army, which can make some payment.
I should like the tradition of unpaid service that the special constable represents to be preserved, as I am sure my hon. Friend would. I understand from a recent parliamentary answer by my hon. Friend the Minister that a campaign is to start early in the new year to recruit more special constables. Some form of imaginative compensation may be needed that would make the difference between this form of service to the community and others slightly less one-sided financially. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend could expand on the point.

Mr. Pawsey: I am pleased that I gave way to my hon. Friend. He clearly deserves his reputation for eloquence. Moreover, he shows that he is very interested in the conditions of service of special constables.
Special constables are unpaid. They receive only the most modest of allowances and a uniform. Incidentally, I have to tell the House, and I take no pleasure in so doing, that those modest allowances are less than adequate or fair. For example, for reasons which frankly I do not understand, a special constable is allowed only 60 per cent. of the meal allowance that a regular constable receives. There may be a good reason for that obvious anomaly, but if there is, I suspect that it has rather more to do with good budgeting than with good diet.
The Minister is aware that even the sick pay entitlement of special constables is worse than that of regulars. I find it genuinely surprising not that there are so few special constables but that there are so many, given the lack of incentives—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West. I therefore urge the Minister to begin a really effective recruitment campaign which will substantially increase the number of special constables. The campaign must contain a modest form of bounty, perhaps as little as £500 per year. That bounty should be found from new money. It should not come from existing police budgets. If it did, that would be a disincentive to the recruitment of special constables. The Minister should also introduce a fair sick pay scheme for special constables who are injured in the course of their official duties. It should equal that which applies to the regular police.
I urge my hon. Friend also to direct his undoubted talents towards the recruitment of more coloured special constables. At present, there are only 453 coloured specials out of a total of 15,500. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's reply to a parliamentary question that I asked, which appeared on 25 January in the Official Report. I hope that he will consider, if he has not already done so, more direct contact with ethnic groups. I ask him also to consider making better use of the ethnic press and to invite ethnic leaders to meet him so that he may advise them about the

duties of special constables and seek to persuade them to encourage more ethnic community members to become special constables.
Earlier I referred to training. In July this year I asked my hon. Friend the Minister
what action he intends to take to improve the training of special constables.
My hon. Friend gave one of his typically helpful and complete replies. He said:
We are already reviewing the training needs of special constables with the intention of producing a national training package. This will include training in basic policing skills and knowledge, such as powers of arrest, classification of offences, stop and search powers, traffic law and community involvement with management training for those in supervisory roles."—[Official Report, 12 July 1990; Vol 176, c. 318–191]
That is a full reply, but I am anxious to draw my hon. Friend a little further.
For example, can he say how long the training courses might last? Will there be a test at the end of the courses? Who will be the instructors and where will the courses take place? Will they take place within individual force areas or will there be a training college to which recruits might be encouraged to go? Can my hon. Friend say when the improved training courses might commence? Will they be available to existing members of the special constabulary or will they apply only to new recruits?
I appreciate that I am asking my hon. Friend a number of questions and I must confess that I have not given him prior notice. Nevertheless, given his undoubted expertise, the chances are that he will be able to respond in full. If, sadly, he is not able to do so, I am sure that his excellent officials will be able to provide me with a written response in due course. My hon. Friend knows me well and he knows that I have asked those questions in a genuine and constructive desire to be helpful. I therefore look forward to his full reply.
In my view, the effectiveness of any disciplined force is in direct proportion to the training that the force receives. Therefore, specials need to be informed about new legislation and new policing methods being introduced. They should be able to take their place alongside their regular colleagues without any sense of inferiority. They should be secure in the information and advice that they have received and they should be fully capable of dealing with any problems of law enforcement. The regular arm should be confident enough in the specials not to be continually looking over their shoulders wondering what the specials might be doing.
There is thus a need for a more comprehensive form of training than currently exists. I believe that good training will reduce the at times arm's-length attitude adopted by some forces. It may also turn out to be a positive aid to recruiting as properly trained specials will be seen as capable of playing a real and positive role in policing. They would release more regular police for more active duties. Properly trained specials could also play a stronger role in supporting the regular force with back-up and patrol work. I hope that my hon. Friend will inquire into the considerable differences in the number of special constables in various police forces, and I hope that he will ask why the number of special constables in some forces has been allowed to fall.
Another parliamentary answer, which appeared in the Official Report on 15 March, shows that there are wide discrepancies between police forces. In Bedfordshire, there


were 215 special constables in 1985, but by 1989 that already small figure had fallen to 137. In the Thames valley, there were 715 special constables in 1985, but sadly by 1989 the figure had fallen to 568. I am not saying that the decline applies across the board. In some countries, there has been a modest improvement. In Leicestershire, for example, there were 220 special constables in 1985, but that had jumped quite spectacularly to 327 in 1989. In Northamptonshire, a modest improvement was also shown, from 203 in 1985 to 240 in 1989, Nevertheless, I continue to be concerned about the wide discrepancy among police forces.

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is right to link training and the varying experience of different counties in recruiting special constables. Does he agree that the parallel that I drew with the Territorial Army shows what can be done? He will have noted, as I have in my constituency, the emphasis that has been placed recently on the benefit of joining the Territorial Army not only for what the individual will learn but for that individual's employer in terms of the employee's improvement in general mental attitude to employment and its demands which service with the TA offers.
Does he further agree that, in areas where there has been a relative lack of success in the recruitment of special constables, an effort could be made—indeed, we may hope for such an effort in the recruitment campaign in 1991—to persuade potential employers of the advantages of employing those who serve as special constables? Does he agree that that may need to be addressed in the near future?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He rightly says that there will be an undoubted benefit to employers whose employees undergo the appropriate training as special constables, and he is right to draw an analogy between special constables and the Territorial Army. For reasons that I do not clearly understand, the TA is regarded as being a more prestigious organisation.
My hon. Friend is right to say that benefits will accrue to employers as a result of employees serving as special constables. For example, a special constable may be able to advise on improved methods of security. That is one positive benefit which would be useful to employers. I appreciate, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister does, the further helpful and knowledgeable contribution made by my hon. Friend.
I hold the view that the better the training, the more professional the application. That, in turn, may ensure a higher level of acceptance by those forces which still regard the specials as suitable only for looking after the village fete. It is evident that several police forces take that wholly mistaken view, which deprives them of much additional expertise.
As the special constables are unpaid volunteers, they undoubtedly bring great enthusiasm to policing and it is wasteful that better use is not made of their time——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Pawsey: I was referring to the enthusiasm brought to policing by the special constables. It would be wasteful if that enthusiasm, time, talent and effort were not utilised most effectively. I very much hope that my hon. Friend

and his colleagues at the Home Office will be able to re-emphasise their positive support for special constables. I am sure that that would do a great deal of good, both for the morale of special constables and for the prospects of the recruiting campaign which my hon. Friend is to mount in the reasonably near future.
There is great concern about rising crime. The specials are men and women who are prepared to do something about the crime wave. They do not just talk about it—they have acted. They put their free time and energy where others simply put their mouths. More specials would be a positive contribution to law enforcement. A strong and particular bond would emerge between the volunteer specials and the public—or it would do if there numbers were greater. The specials are unsung heroes and deserve a far higher profile, which would also assist recruiting.
I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a splendid speech made only last month at Hutton hall by the noble Lord Ferrers to an audience of senior regular and special police officers. He said:
But like everything in Life you get out of anything in direct proportion to what you put in. Put in little and you will get out little. It is just the same with the Specials. You will only get out of the Specials what you are prepared to put into them. Put in little, and you will get out little. Put in a lot, and you will get out a lot.
The contribution which Specials can make to the work of any particular force will be in direct proportion to the effort the force is prepared to make in managing them effectively.
And this brings me back to what I said a short while ago. It is essential to work out a coherent strategy of how you want to use Specials and how you can achieve those aims.
The noble Lord is right. Given good managment and a worthwhile role—not on the lines of the village fete, as I mentioned earlier—the specials can play a considerable part in the battle against crime, but they can play that part only if they are well trained, well motivated and well managed, and their management depends to a large extent on the leadership that comes from the regular police.
In my own county of Warwickshire, we are fortunate in having a chief constable who positively believes in the special police. It is no coincidence that, in Warwickshire—which, admittedly, has a small police force—we have 347 specials. That is slightly up on the 1985 figure. I recall attending, a year or so ago, the passing-out parade of the special constables, held at the police headquarters in Leek Wootton in Warwickshire. It was indeed a memorable occasion. We were graced with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was Home Secretary at the time, and I recall the admirable speech that he made. The House will not be surprised to know that the new special constables were smart and that their enthusiasm was obvious. They had clearly been made welcome and they felt part of a team. There is no arm's-length attitude in Warwickshire.
I have referred to increasing police manpower, but despite the increase of 24,000 the public would still like to see more bobbies on the beat. Police recruitment continues to be slow, and the situation is likely to worsen as the number of school leavers continues to fall. More special constables would be welcome, not in place of regular police but in addition to them. At a time when private armies are apparently increasing—witness the increase in the number of security firms and the emergence of the Guardian Angels on our tubes—it is unfortunate that the number of specials is falling.
I do not wish to imply that I regard special constables in any way as a private army. Far from it—they are part


of the police force. Clearly, however, some people feel that a measure of additional law enforcement is both desirable and necessary. An increase in the number of specials under the control of the regular police, and with increased responsibility and accountability to the public, would be preferable to the mushrooming of security companies and vigilante groups.
I do not see specials as coppers on the cheap. They have a different and more supportive role. They do their duty not for money, because there is no money, but because they are genuinely interested in police work. They have a simple and commendable aim—to serve their communities—and it is my argument and belief that they should be encouraged to do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to this debate on the special constabulary. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has long given enthusiastic support to the special constabulary and I warmly welcome his constructive comments. I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) in his place. I know that he too takes a close interest in the specials, and I shall deal later with the points that he made in his two shrewd interventions.
This debate comes at a time when there are many pressures on the police. It provides a useful chance to focus on the contribution made by the special constabulary to the total policing effort in Britain.
I should like to make it clear at the outset—I echo what my hon. Friends have said—that the Government do not regard the specials as in any sense an alternative to the regular police. They are an additional resource which, if properly used, can allow the great experience and training of the regular officers to be put to the best possible use.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, in 1974 there were 24,000 specials, but for the past 10 years the figures have hovered around 16,000. There are currently 15,500 specials in England and Wales. There is a steady pattern of recruitment, but it is matched by the numbers who leave because of domestic or work commitments—or, I am happy to report, because they decide to join the regular police force.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend give us a rough estimate of the percentage of special constables who transfer to the regular police? If he cannot give me the information now, perhaps inspiration will come to him a little later.

Mr. Lloyd: I can tell my hon. Friend that the proportion is about 10 per cent.—a useful number. If I am wrong I shall let him know at some time after the debate, but I think that that figure is a pretty good guide. The special constabulary is a very productive recruiting pool for police officers.
Our immediate objective is to increase the strength of the specials to 20 per cent. of the regular establishment—about 20,000—and, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Government will be launching a national advertising campaign early next year. The campaign will cost £1·3 million, and will run for about three years. It will involve

national advertising to increase awareness of the special constabulary, as well as material to support the essential local recruitment initiatives.
However, we are not just recruiting numbers for their own sake. There was a time when the special constabulary was high in numerical strength, but contained too many members who turned out only for occasional ceremonial events. We want a committed, trained special constabulary, which can make an effective contribution to the policing of the areas for which it is responsible.
My hon. Friend spoke of the varied professional policing tasks now being carried out by specials. I applaud those developments. It is, of course, for chief constables to make decisions about the operational deployment of their men, but it seems obvious to me that varied deployment of specials can only be in everyone's interest. Professional policing requires both training and experience, and, if we want specials to provide effective support for the regular police, they must be able to provide that support across a wide range of duties. Patrolling the beat or attending football matches are obvious duties; but traffic duties, responding to major emergencies, neighbourhood watch and so on can all involve special constables. A number of forces operate "takeover days", when specials run a section for a day with responsibility for all aspects of policing.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend said earlier that the advertising campaign would cost £1·3 million. Am I not right in saying that that cost is substantially greater than the total cost of the specials? I do not intend in any way to disparage what my hon. Friend is doing; indeed, I welcome it. I mention it merely to highlight the value for money that the country receives from its 16,500 special constables. My hon. Friend clearly agrees with me; otherwise, he would not be advancing the admirable case for advertising and attracting more recruits.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend, with great skill, has seized an opportunity to emphasise the excellent value for money provided by the specials. He is entirely right about that.
All the measures to which I have referred—"takeover days" in particular, but also the other training and activities in which they are involved—develop the skills and confidence of specials, and enable regular police commanders to deploy their regular officers with greater flexibility. Individual specials, of course, may have personal skills—in languages, for instance, or in other professional training—which can be put to good use by their force.
However, there is a caveat. My hon. Friend spoke properly of the importance of training. For specials to be effective, they must be able to provide a professional response to the tasks on which they are deployed and the key to that is proper training and management as my hon. Friend said on several occasions in his speech. A special who is unable to carry out the required duties is no help to the public and, an irritation to his colleagues and could even put others at risk.
Forces are now putting greater effort into training and chief officers share the Government's belief and the belief of my hon. Friend, in the importance of having specials trained to professional standards for the tasks that they are undertaking. We are providing support through a new training package being developed by the central planning and training unit at Harrogate to assist local training.
My hon. Friend asked several questions about training. It is up to chief officers to determine what parts of the package they use and whether that training is carried out. My hon. Friend also asked whether there would be a pass or fail criterion in the training. That is very much a matter for chief officers, but I assure my hon. Friend that any special who proved himself inadequate for duties on a training course would not continue long in the force.
However, training and the other issues should not be considered as separate factors. In September, the Home Office ran a two-day conference to consider proposals for the recruitment campaign and the management and training of those recruited. The conference brought together special commandants, senior regular officers, staff and local authority associations and Home Office officials and others to look in a thorough manner at the way forward for the special constabulary. The conference provided an opportunity for training proposals to be discussed with those aware of the detailed local needs. We hope that it will have given an opportunity for forces to reflect on what they need to do to make the most of their specials in the light of developments. A full report of the conference will be circulated to chief officers very shortly.
In addition to the general matters covered by the conference, the Government are taking a range of practical measures to address specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth paid proper tribute to those specials injured in the course of their duties. No nationwide statistics are yet available for injuries to specials, although Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is now asking forces to provide them. In Avon and Somerset last year, 13 specials were assaulted, and 17 were assaulted in Devon and Cornwall. I believe that other forces have similar figures. That reminds us, if anyone still needs convincing, that specials can be as much in the front line as any other police officer. I know that the House will want to join me in expressing sympathy to those who have been injured in the course of their duties.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend referred to the number of injuries. Is he aware that special constables are not provided with the same secure helmets as are worn by regular police? Specials wear a soft cap, while the regular police have a stiffened and protective form of headgear. Is it not time that we provided specials with the same degree of protection that is afforded to the regular police?

Mr. Lloyd: We are considering many factors concerning the specials and that factor should be added to the list if it is not already in the minds of particular chief constables. I am grateful for that suggestion, and I know that this debate will be read and my hon. Friend's reference noted.
In addition to the general matters covered by the conference, we are considering a range of specific points. My hon. Friend stated that existing regulations do not properly meet the needs of injured officers. He will be glad to hear that we are in the process of amending special constables' regulations as far as they affect sick pay. That will principally link sick pay to the actual loss of earnings of a special rather than limiting it to the earnings of a regular constable if those would be lower.
If a special is injured in the course of his duty, it can only be right that we should ensure that he does not suffer financially. That was accepted by the police advisory

board and we have subsequently consulted staff and local authority associations on further technical changes to ensure that our arrangements fit in with current social security regulations. We hope to be laying those regulations before Parliament shortly.
My hon. Friend asked me about meal allowances for specials. They have now been put on exactly the same footing as those for the regular police force.
Any discussion of allowances for specials leads inevitably, as it did during my hon. Friend's speech and the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. North-West, to the bounty. That matter was discussed at the 1987 conference, and views have been put to us from many quarters, both for and against. At the last meeting of the police advisory board, no agreement was reached in the face of strongly held views, and we undertook to give it a further thought.
I must say that there are attractions to the idea of paying a bouty in some form as a recognition of the public service and commitment that the specials give the community. It seems to me only proper for that service to be acknowledged, as it is in some other forms of voluntary public service, such as the Territorial Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said. But we recognise the strength of the feelings involved and are particularly sensitive to the views of those specials who feel that any form of payment would damage a proud tradition of voluntary service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be giving the matter further thought and considering the feasibility of a pilot scheme.
For all that the Government do, though, the key to the contribution of the special constabulary lies at the local level. Effective policing, as we all know, depends on the support of the community for the police, and specials are ordinary members of the community who take their concern for good policing seriously enough to commit their own time and effort to their local force. I cannot praise too highly that public service commitment.
Local police commanders can draw on the local knowledge of their specials; they can deploy them to the front line whether for a major emergency or a pub fight; and they can use them for routine policing tasks to free regular officers for more specialist functions. There is no question of specials being an alternative to regular police officers. They are a complementary body whose support increases the ability of the force to match the professional skills of regular officers with the tasks which need them most.
It is a privilege to be able to use the opportunity of this debate to put on record the Government's appreciation of the dedication and professionalism of the special constabulary. It is a body of men and women of all backgrounds who are united by a common desire to play their part in helping to make their communities safer and better places in which to live. They are unpaid and carry out their duties because they believe in them. That is the real meaning of public service. I am sure that the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the special constabulary for the essential part they play in the policing of this country and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth for raising the matter and enabling us to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.